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
Yes, you should. What object was that?
her
Can I use the thickened static mesh that was generated as a DForce object?
And if so, how can I use the thickener program/mesh's parameter settings to set up the generated mesh for DForce?
ooops ! Excuse me
!
Ooops... I was guilty too!
Regardless... I bought Thickener last night due to Barbult's endorsement + the PA's quick communication and desire to provide the best product possible. The rest takes care of itself!
Lastly...
Barbult... you should really consider doing a youtube "how to" of some of the products you use... like this one and Ultra Scenerey... I swear I'd subscribe!
Have you tried Spring Dynamics? Love to hear your thoughts
I have a whole Daz forum thread on my experiments with UltraScenery. I'm not inclined to mess with videos.
I have Spring Dynamics, but I find Daz animation painful to deal with, so I don't do much animation. I think I only really used it once. I should try again. People have had trouble figuring out how to achieve some of the demonstrated effects, but as far as I know, the PA has never responded to questions about it. Don't expect the kind of exceptional PA support you get here in the Thickener thread! If you do a lot of animation and can pick it up cheap, it might be worth trying. I wonder how Spring Dynamics would interact with thickening....something to play with, perhaps.
I don't think so. When I, accidentally apply dForce to an thickened object, it exploded. I suppose it's because the thickened object are closed meshes.
I managed to avoid this reconstruction.
Here is my silly Spring Dynamics Thickening experiment. Excuse the gray texture nudity. I don't know how to fit clothing to something like this.
Dropbox link I hope it works.
Is there anything that you can't do with this software @barbult ? I seem to end up in forum threads where you have figured out the products that I have had most problems with. Ultrascenery was another ... and now Spring Dynamics - although I had a little more success experimenting with that. I think Mesh Grabber was another one, at least that was one that I bought and abandoned (dForce Companion yet another). Unusually I found Blender easier to use, even with exporting OBJ files, than trying to manipulate Mesh Grabber.
So I fully accept that the problems I have are my own and I do not meant to imply that the creators are lacking in skills. I just need a detailed how-to and your experiments do go a long way tp proving that, so thank you again.
Yes, you can dForce a thickened object. How well it will work depends upon its construction and the parameters you choose to use.
As an experiment, I created a primitive plane and angled it over another plane which serves as the collision object. I made a static thickened copy of the plane and offset it from the original plane. I did the same for a dynamic thickened copy.
Add a dForce modifier to all three and run an animated simulation. The static thickened plane has slightly different behavior than the original plane due to the fact that it has an edge and second surface and ends up with a different drape. The dynamic copy mimics the original as the mesh is dynamically updated.
Although you add a dForce modifier to all three, you cannot independently set the parameters on the static thickened copy as the surface pane does not show the dForce parameters. You can modify the dForce parameters of the original to change it and the dynamic thickened object draping but the static version remains locked to the default dForce parameters. Save and reopen the file, add the dForce modifier to the static object again, and the parameters will now appear and you can vary its dForce properties.
Images L to R: Static - Original - Dynamic
Frame 0:
Frame 12:
Frame 18:
Frame 30: Static (left) shows slight differences. Dynamic (right) is a clone of the original (center) but with an edge and second surface. (Excuse the color change from previous set, redid and got the colors on the dynamic version reversed.)
Frame 30 after changing original's density to 25: Note static copy did not change much (there's always some differences after every simulation).
Frame 30 after saving/reopening file and setting density of original and static object to 25:
@RGcincy Im only seeing one image not sure what happened to the others.
I will say im having a interesting time playing with this. And have learned a few things in the process. Now if it was possible to select polygons or material sections and only thicken those areas it would be awesomest. Since awesome is already taken for the plugin now.
Thanks for the confirmation, yeah I had a couple of explosions as well!
Thanks for the info, I'll give it a go!If DAZ ever decides to make Barbult head of QA, it will make this store something like a 3D heaven!
I appreciate your confidence, but that sounds way too much like work! I am happily retired.
I may reload them all. If you don't load every image at once, the forum seems to drop previous attachments.
Forum image attachment handling has become pathetic. Now you can't even delete one image that you uploaded. It deletes them all and you have to start over and upload them all again.
Agree, it's a pain especially for tutorials. That happened to me a while back and then corrected itself but is back again.
I have fun turning Daz primitives into abstract art pieces. I changed a 5 sided sphere primitive into this interesting vase with subD, Thickener, Mesh Grabber. and a shader.
From this:
To this:
@barbult Nicely done! The purple glass vase is very realistic looking and it's amazing how much you can change a primitive with all the cool add-on tools that are now available. Thanks for the inspiration!
You are welcome! I like just playing around with no preconceived idea of what will eventually be created. The purple glass shader is from Procedural Gem Shader for Iray.
It's fixed. Now the UV map stretches uniformly in the subdivided border.
The version 1.1 allows to thicken only selected areas. The user can select surfaces or facets (using the Surface Selection Tool or the Geometry Editor Tool, respectively).
This is an example. The thickness was a large value in this case.
Here is the wireframe image:
Note: The thickening of individually selected facets doesn't work with high-resolution meshes, it converts to base resolutions. The thickening of selected surfaces doesn't have such limitation.
Awesome, thanks for solving the UV issue and the added feature. Makes the product even better.
It sounds like a great update! This is exciting!
The Thickener update is in DIM already. I looked at the new UV stretching. It looks very nice at border subdivision 0 or 1. At border subdivision 2 or higher, there is a surprising amount of nonuniformity in the strecthing. Is something wrong?
I'm having a problem with dynamic thickeners and selected surfaces.
If I have an object and select one surface and create a dynamic thickened object, then I select a different surface in the same object and create a second dynamic thickened object with different offset, as soon as the time line moves to the next frame, the thickened objects no longer use their correct offsets. The thickened objects don't seem to remember which surfaces they were supposed to affect. What is the proper workflow for situations like this?
So if we make a new surface from our selected polys before we use the thickener, this can circumvent this limitation?
No, it's an effect of the protrusion of the object. If you set the protrusion to 0.0 %, the uniformity is linear, but in this case, as the edges in the border are sharp, the subdivision is almost useless. But if the protrusion is increased, the first row in the border acts as a boundary between the border and the sides. so the edges are smooth now, and there is a transition between the sides and the border. Increase the protrusion more and you'll see how more rows act as part of the boundary. With extreme protrusion values, the uniformity is linear again.
I think this behavior seems more natural.