Skip to content
Contact us

Customer Insights: Where are OpenPBR and Material X supported?

Last week we covered the background of OpenPBR and MaterialX. This week we dive into the practical implementation question: where these standards are actually supported today and where significant gaps remain.

USD solves geometry interchange, but materials have been the missing piece, until now. MaterialX and OpenPBR finally provide consistent material exchange across tools. But where are these standards actually supported today, and when should you invest? Here's the practical implementation guide.

When is the right time to invest in MaterialX and OpenPBR?

The answer isn't just what these standards promise, but where they actually work in production today. The current landscape shows production-ready support in film/VFX renderers, experimental adoption in real-time engines, and sparse coverage in CAD/AEC tools. Understanding this uneven adoption pattern is critical for timing your investment and avoiding costly implementation missteps.

Strong adoption today:

Emerging adoption:

  • Blender Cycles - No native OpenPBR, but exporter writes Principled BSDF as OpenPBR for interchange.
  • Unreal Engine - Support for MaterialX and OpenPBR has expanded steadily, moving from Standard Surface in early releases to USD workflows and now OpenPBR in 5.6. Substrate materials, currently in Beta, provide better fidelity than legacy shading, with OpenPBR 1.1 largely supported except for transmission dispersion (substrate is expected to become the main shading model in the future).
  • Adobe Substance - Working to integrate into multiple Substance 3D tools.
  • Maya - Built-in, default support for OpenPBR, starting with version 2025.3.
  • 3ds Max - OpenPBR is now the default surface shader, starting with Max 2026.

Not yet ready:

  • RenderMan - Still centered on Lama; MaterialX BSDF support in progress, no OpenPBR surface documented, no support for layered MaterialX as of 10-Apr-2024.
  • Corona, Octane - Roadmaps reference interest, but production support is lacking e.g. MaterialX/OpenPBR in OctaneRender 2026.1, moving Sheen to Fuzz.
  • CAD/AEC - VRED adopts MaterialX SDK with OpenPBR, but broad CAD support is sparse.

As with any change in production, you should validate that the OpenPBR pipeline works with the DCCs that you have using real-world examples.

Why Switch to OpenPBR If My Renderer Already Has a Standard Material?

It’s a fair question. Every renderer already has its own “standard” material: Arnold Standard Surface, Redshift Standard and Blender Principled. For teams that stay entirely within one renderer, those models work perfectly.

Think of it the same way as USD vs glTF: if you live in one application, glTF/Principled may be fine. But the moment you move assets between DCCs or share them externally, native models break down; parameters don't match, looks drift, and artists are forced to rebuild or retune. That's where OpenPBR makes the difference: it provides a single, agreed definition that travels consistently across renderers. If you span multiple apps and renderers, USD + MaterialX + OpenPBR provides a robust way to achieve predictable fidelity.

Where USD + OpenPBR + MaterialX Might Not Be Worth It Yet

OpenPBR is already production-ready in some film, VFX, automotive, and Omniverse pipelines. But there are cases where the benefits are limited, at least for now:

  • Single-app workflows: If you live entirely inside one renderer, its native material is simpler. The value of OpenPBR only emerges when you need interchange.
  • Small teams: If your focus is speed in one DCC, OpenPBR adds complexity without immediate payoff.
  • Real-time games: Unreal’s Substrate is moving quickly. Unity has no clear story yet.
  • CAD/AEC: Some platforms (like VRED) integrate MaterialX with OpenPBR, but broader adoption is lagging. Translation layers remain necessary.

This doesn’t mean avoiding OpenPBR entirely, it means phased adoption. Start with native materials if you’re single-app or in real-time/CAD workflows, and track vendor roadmaps to see when OpenPBR becomes viable in your space.

Whether you're already using USD or considering adoption, your material pipeline readiness determines success. Here's how to evaluate if MaterialX + OpenPBR makes sense for your workflow:

A Decision Framework That Actually Works

Evaluating Your Material Pipeline Readiness

Whether you're already using USD or considering adoption, your material pipeline readiness determines success. Here's how to evaluate if MaterialX + OpenPBR makes sense for your workflow:

Tool support

  1. Do your DCCs load/edit MaterialX graphs?
  2. Do your renderers support OpenPBR surfaces?

Parameter coverage, in your tools of choice:

  1. Are core lobes (base color, roughness, metalness, IOR) reliable?
  2. Do advanced lobes (fuzz, thin-film, coat anisotropy) behave consistently enough for your needs?

Pipeline integration

  1. Can you round-trip materials between tools without rebuilding them? Be sure to test on real-world scenes.
  2. Do exporters attach MaterialX/OpenPBR bindings consistently?

Vendor alignment

  1. Do your DCC/tool vendors publish roadmaps for OpenPBR/MaterialX?
  2. Have you validated with production assets, not demo files?

Governance and Roadmap

What ensures these standards have lasting industry support?

Just as the Alliance for OpenUSD stewards USD, the Academy Software Foundation hosts OpenPBR as part of MaterialX. With open governance, active working groups, and leadership from Autodesk, Adobe, Nvidia, Pixar, Apple, SideFX and Chaos, these are community standards with public specifications and shipping integrations.

For organizations interested in shaping development, working group participation is available through AOUSD (aousd.org) and ASWF (aswf.io).

In short, this is not a vendor silo solution, but a community standard with tests, reviews and shipping integrations, which makes it durable, portable and trustworthy.

The Bottom Line

If your pipeline spans multiple DCCs and renderers, adopt USD + MaterialX/OpenPBR now (if OpenPBR is supported and you have verified with real-world samples). If you are single-app, native materials may be fine until you need interchange. If you are in CAD, AEC, or real-time, track vendor roadmaps and plan a phased adoption.

In short: USD delivers structure; MaterialX and OpenPBR ensure the looks travel with it.

How 4D Pipeline Can Help

Before OpenPBR, moving materials between DCCs meant constant surprises: parameters flipped, shaders broke, looks drifted (and we developed tools to quantitatively measure difference to ground-truth). At 4D Pipeline, we’ve lived those challenges first-hand and know exactly where the gaps appear. That’s why we combine deep knowledge of MaterialX and OpenPBR with hands-on feasibility studies across your toolchain, giving you a clear path to consistent, portable materials. You can see examples of our work with automotive, fashion, and industrial clients in our project portfolio.

Let's Connect:

References and Further Reading

  1. https://materialx.org/Specification.html#CurrentSpec

  2. MaterialX Virtual Town Hall 2024, “Material Exchange in Omniverse with MaterialX and OpenPBR”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNQHlbHYHc&t=1493s

 
, , , ,