Let’s Make Clothing! Tutorial thread. Shoes too!
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
An additional level of difficulty is inherent in doing an item with actual overlapping layers. Note that total poly count affects bending as well as the weight map smoothing, though. What kind of count are you working with?I have no idea.
An additional level of difficulty is inherent in doing an item with actual overlapping layers. Note that total poly count affects bending as well as the weight map smoothing, though. What kind of count are you working with?I have no idea.
Hexagon doesn't have a way to tell you the polygon count?
Can you do a screencap with lit wireframe on, then?
An additional level of difficulty is inherent in doing an item with actual overlapping layers. Note that total poly count affects bending as well as the weight map smoothing, though. What kind of count are you working with?I have no idea.
Hexagon doesn't have a way to tell you the polygon count?
Can you do a screencap with lit wireframe on, then?Yes, it does, I just never noticed it before.
The count is as follows:
# of points 14,418
# of edges: 28,832
# of faces: 14,416
Hexagon doesn't have a way to tell you the polygon count?
Can you do a screencap with lit wireframe on, then?Yes, it does, I just never noticed it before.
The count is as follows:
# of points 14,418
# of edges: 28,832
# of faces: 14,416
Ok, try this: Save your progress to library. Go back to Hex and subdivide the mesh you exported to up the poly count. Export and use the old one as a base for TU so you don't lose your rigging progress. Try with the new one and see if that helps your bending.
It's rare that I sell a single piece with less than 20k faces for a shirt and 40k for a pair of pants. I think you need at least 40k for smooth bending on something as big and swoopy as this. We can try the subd function but I'm not very familiar with how it works (if someone would like to jump in on that feature).
Hexagon doesn't have a way to tell you the polygon count?
Can you do a screencap with lit wireframe on, then?Yes, it does, I just never noticed it before.
The count is as follows:
# of points 14,418
# of edges: 28,832
# of faces: 14,416
Ok, try this: Save your progress to library. Go back to Hex and subdivide the mesh you exported to up the poly count. Export and use the old one as a base for TU so you don't lose your rigging progress. Try with the new one and see if that helps your bending.
It's rare that I sell a single piece with less than 20k faces for a shirt and 40k for a pair of pants. I think you need at least 40k for smooth bending on something as big and swoopy as this. We can try the subd function but I'm not very familiar with how it works (if someone would like to jump in on that feature). In other words, I need at least another level of collapsed smoothing in Hex. I don't think I've ever made anything that high poly before. Granted, I've never kept track of the poly-count, but still. I'll see what happens.
Okaaaaaaayyyyyyy...
I just tried what you suggested, and this was the result.I upped the poly count on the main cloal to over 57,000 polys, and the capelet to 14,000+ polys and ran the Transfer Utility to transfer the rigging from my first cloak to the new one. When I tried posing bone Front-right1, instead of the whole string of bones moving along in a straight line with it, the rest of the bones just hang loosely from the end.
Oh dear. That's not good.
I've never seen that happen. Did you reload the current version from library before using it as a TU source?
I've never seen that happen. Did you reload the current version from library before using it as a TU source?Yep. In fact, it's still in the scene, I simply "hid" it after running the TU, and just tested it to make sure it didn't get broken when I had shut Daz down to open Hex.
I've never seen that happen. Did you reload the current version from library before using it as a TU source?Yep. In fact, it's still in the scene, I simply "hid" it after running the TU, and just tested it to make sure it didn't get broken when I had shut Daz down to open Hex.
Aha. Is the new version conformed to it, by any chance? That can cause visual errors.
Aha. Is the new version conformed to it, by any chance? That can cause visual errors.Yep. That fixed it. I still have the "rip through" of the liner through the shell though. Not sure if I need to rework the weight maps or bump up the subdivision in Hex again. I'm not sure if bumping it another notch will crash Hexagon or not. It would be the equivalent of four levels of smoothing when all's said and done, if I did.
Aha. Is the new version conformed to it, by any chance? That can cause visual errors.Yep. That fixed it. I still have the "rip through" of the liner through the shell though. Not sure if I need to rework the weight maps or bump up the subdivision in Hex again. I'm not sure if bumping it another notch will crash Hexagon or not. It would be the equivalent of four levels of smoothing when all's said and done, if I did.
You probably don't want it up in the 100k range. Try turning up smoothing a little instead?
Aha. Is the new version conformed to it, by any chance? That can cause visual errors.Yep. That fixed it. I still have the "rip through" of the liner through the shell though. Not sure if I need to rework the weight maps or bump up the subdivision in Hex again. I'm not sure if bumping it another notch will crash Hexagon or not. It would be the equivalent of four levels of smoothing when all's said and done, if I did.
You probably don't want it up in the 100k range. Try turning up smoothing a little instead?Probably not. I don't think my computer could handle it.
I tried adding a smoothing modifier, and, while it helped "smooth" things out, it didn't clear up the issue of the liner and shell crossing each other. (first pic without any smoothing modifier, second with smoothing set to 100)
A full lining is a tough thing to work with. You may need to experiment with scaling the lining inward further from the outer layer in Hex again, or you may have to offer morph fixes or (most commonly) an unlined version.
You can try using the smoothing brush on the edges of groups with the figure posed. Sometimes that helps. It's the second brush over (the one that adds weight being the first).
You can try using the smoothing brush on the edges of groups with the figure posed. Sometimes that helps. It's the second brush over (the one that adds weight being the first).Yeah, I tried that before and it didn't help. I'm beginning to think I may have too many small bones, such as Front-right2/Front-left2 and Front-right3/Front-left3. Either that or it's because the face groups for Front-right2/Front-left2 are mostly on the capelet. They hardly have any polys on the cloak itself for some reason. Another thing I noticed, when I ran the Transfer utility, it didn't copy the face groups exactly. They're jagged, unlike my originals. Not sure if that would be an issue.
We're in uncharted territory and this is a toughie, so I promise nothing. My suggestion, though, is that if too many and too small custom bones are an issue, go for an eight-bone setup on the customs: Two front left, two front right, two back left, two back right. This requires a rerig but you should be able to just delete some and lengthen the top two in each chain in terms of the bones themselves.
My thinking is that you're not going to achieve true sweeping movement without a LOT of morphs anyway, so there's no point in trying to add enough bones for that.
As far as the lining issues, Fuse had a crazy idea that just might work when I brought it up with her. Do the lining as a separate conformer, use TU to copy rigging from the finished outer cloak to it, and conform it to the cloak, not Genesis. Set it to collide with the cloak as well. It may clip a little with the figure, but not in ways that are likely to be visible to any viewer given the fit of this thing.
I see. Well, you know your own geometry best.
I would think you want to conform the cloak to Genesis and the liner to the cloak because you want movement controlled by the cloak itself (right)? Also, there's always a subjective "couple of inches" wiggle room with layered collision, and you want the liner to clip a little with Genesis' shoulders more than you want the cloak to become that much more bulky. Anyway, if you set them up as separate conformers you can readily try it both ways and see if what I mean makes sense or you prefer it the other way (because at that point you can conform whatever to whatever, you have the options).
Well, I just tested the "separate liner/cloak" option by loading a second cloak and turning the opacity off on the corresponding surfaces, and it doesn't work, The the more smoothing you apply, the worse the liner pushes through the cloak. I tried this both ways—with the liner colliding with the cloak and the cloak colliding with the liner, with the liner conforming to the cloak and with the cloak conforming to the liner, and all variations thereof.
I don't know what to tell you. You might have to ditch the liner altogether and use an UberSurface shader with the translucence option on and a red translucence color. It will still show up unnaturally dark under IBL light but at least you can get a different shade than the outer cloak.
I don't know what to tell you. You might have to ditch the liner altogether and use an UberSurface shader with the translucence option on and a red translucence color. It will still show up unnaturally dark under IBL light but at least you can get a different shade than the outer cloak.It could be an issue with the base mesh. One of the things I've noticed about it is when I do a "select non-planar faces" in Hexagon, a large majority of the mesh is highlighted. It's mostly non-planar faces, and I can't seem to do anything about it. I don't know if that's the issue though. I did try to go back and re-do the thickness, but it seems to cause spikes when I do so. This may be linked to the affore mentioned non-planar issue.
There I can't help you because I don't model with Hex.
There I can't help you because I don't model with Hex. I figured that. One other question though. Would making the capelet a separate figure help? As it is, the capelet is a part of the cloak object.
There I can't help you because I don't model with Hex. I figured that. One other question though. Would making the capelet a separate figure help? As it is, the capelet is a part of the cloak object.
I guess it depends how much clipping that you're seeing actually involves the capelet. I do think that would go over well with the customer because then they could use just the capelet if they wished, or just the undercape.
There I can't help you because I don't model with Hex. I figured that. One other question though. Would making the capelet a separate figure help? As it is, the capelet is a part of the cloak object.
I guess it depends how much clipping that you're seeing actually involves the capelet. I do think that would go over well with the customer because then they could use just the capelet if they wished, or just the undercape.They could anyway, the capelet and cloak each have their own material zone sets. My only concern is that the capelet might have been getting in the way of getting the face groups and weight maps right. I honestly don't know though.
Another question. As it stands right now, I have Front-Right1and Right-front1 radiating out from almost the exact same X,Y,Z position coming off the Right collar. The same with Front-left1and Left-front1; the only difference being a slight variation in the Z position. Would that have an effect?
I don't have an example handy to illustrate this but 'spiking' in Hexagon when applying "thickness" to an item does mean that there's a problem with the mesh one is trying to thicken. It might mean that there are some unwelded points. They go into overlap and zap out, the higher the thickness requested, the greater the spiking. Best solution is to forget using that tool for that item. There is another way to make items thicker and that is by making an exact copy of the mesh, then bridge the two together. Then fill in the rest of the edges as well. Put two or 3 tessellations lines inside the edge space to help the item hold its shape.
{Get out the popcorn}
Then one has to reapply the uvmap, unfold it ..... apply shading domains.