We love the inspector in sandbox, but since our engine runs on three.js then we benchmark against the viewer.
I would suggest benchmarking against both. The first priority is to understand whether the model itself contains the wrong material settings, or if you just haven’t found the lighting setup you want yet. It could be either.
If material get changed at export does substance (or others?) apply a pbr material? … Can we rely on that pipeline so that the converters make sure they by default apply the optimal (latest and greatest) material at export?
I don’t know much about your pipeline, or what you’re doing, sorry. You’ve just mentioned that Maya and Substance Painter are used, but there are many ways to use them. The Creating GLB files using Maya and Substance Painter guide would probably be a good starting point.
The type of material you want, in the end, is metal/rough PBR. Whether you set that part up in Maya or Substance Painter is up to you, but Substance Painter is probably the better tool for the job.
I feel physical should be the way, but still when we changed it it did not POP
MeshPhysicalMaterial adds a few new options, but isn’t going to look much different from MeshStandardMaterial unless you need those options. Those are things like clearcoat and sheen, which are generally used for special cases like car paint and cloth. It is not “more PBR” than MeshStandardMaterial really — not sure what you mean by “pop”, but I don’t think MeshPhysicalMaterial is going to help.
adding a screenshot at run time in our side and in viewer so we can benchmark the renders. Sure that’s happening.
Are you saying the first render is what you want? Or it’s what you’re seeing in threejs, and you’re not happy with it? It would be helpful to see the result you want — in Substance Painter, for example — and for you to highlight some specific things you think are missing.
As it is, I can’t tell what you’re doing to create the model, or which parts you aren’t happy with.