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
Thanks for the heads up, DaremoK3.
Does that mean that something similar to Marvelous Designer will come for Blender?
Only saw videos of Marvelous Designer but afaik you could basicly do the same cloth sewing method in Blender. Its possible since they added the Cloth Sewing Springs into the Cloth simulation.
Cloth Sewing in Blender at 2:05
As an addition to the Blender Key Map Infographic here I found a good tutorial on all modelling hotkeys explained.
ALL blender hotkeys related to Modelling - 1 hour video
And a quick demonstration of various modeling technics not just Blender related, but most showen with Blender because hey this is all possible there.
20+ Styles of 3D Modeling in 20 Minutes
Sorry Artini, I have been very busy - Answer below, but first...
Syrus_Dante:
In case you missed my edited post on the previous page; Thank you, for helping me get the GIF's working (working now).
Yes, the "Cloth Sewing" that originated from the Blender 2.69 Sewing Threads Patch does allow one to sew clothes together in Blender, but it is inferior compared to MD's cloth sewing capabilities. Also, it is only half of the equation; The other half being the 2D flat pattern creation work-flow. This ability added to Blender is what started me on my journey to code (hack together) a MD clone within Blender. And, Blender does have the ability, with the right combination of add-ons, to be even better than MD as a cloth creation/simulation software.
Artini:
The short answer is; Probably not from me - Not a good enough coder to maintain something like that for the public (nor do I wish to).
The long answer (borrowed from another forum - written Dec.16, 2017):
" Regarding my cloth creation addon :
Back in 2015 in one of Lobo's threads (Hey Lobo) over at Rendo we were discussing some kind of Blender related issues/techniques/what-have-you, and I had mentioned that I was planning on using Blender to create a Marvelous Designer 2 emulator for my own use (I have a love/hate relationship with that software/company), but I have been waiting for Blender's cloth coding to become more mature, and also waiting on other coders' work to become available for inclusion (did not happen, but other avenues became available to me).
I started working on it last year, but I was mostly working with the 2D creation module, and tessellation algorithms. Then, I became heavily involved with beta testing for VWD Cloth and Hair Simulation and a NPR production product for DAZ Studio, so I didn't have much free time to work on it. But, in working with VWD, it gave me an end goal; Instead of waiting for Blender to catch up with other current cloth simulators, I would work towards integrating VWD with Blender, and use it's simulator as the simulation module (which I love, and believe is on par with MD - actually, better, since it has true zero gravity, while I have never achieved zero gravity using MD).
Since I am only a part-time coder (and not really a good one), I don't work on it that much, but I do enjoy the challenge, so I work on it a little here and there. I was developing it for my workhorse 2.71, and 2.76, but a couple of months ago I started to transition over to 2.79, and that is where the dual module approach really came together with the addition of the Templates. Not so much because of the templates (I had already done it in 2.76), but because the templates gave me reason to try something different, and I was able to achieve workspace separation usage (independent of one another, but can be synced) ahead of coding schedule here at the macro designing phase.
I have five stages/phases planned with this (ugly/unwieldy) version being stage 1 - macro designing/building toolsets/workflows. The last planned stage will be bridging with VWD, but that is probably a year or two out.
I plan to open a thread here showcasing it, because I want to show that Blender can do everything that MD can do (sans some simulation parameters), and in some regards, even surpasses what can be achieved with MD. And, all without the $700 price tag (or whatever they are up to now). I have been studying Rich Colburn's work, and If he released his full cloth suite for Blender, it would blow MD away.
On a side note; There is currently a cloth creation addon available for you guys called Cloth Weaver. It's a little pricey now (as a hobbyist opinion - for professional studios, probably not so much), I purchased it when it was a month in for a reasonable price, but one update later and it jumped in price. He does offer free lifetime upgrades, and is actively growing the addon. I never purchase any addons for Blender due to a certain belief system, but I had seen this on Youtube while researching more of Rich Colburn's work, and it piqued my interest. I wanted to see how he was coding some things, and if I could learn anything from it. It is not as robust as mine, but it does not aim to be a MD clone, so for what it does, it is a great cloth creation addon for Blender. You guys should check it out. "
There is one other avenue for a Marvelous Designer style cloth creation emulator for you guys right now, but it isn't an add-on, and the integration is a little convoluted. I believe it was a test-bed for a commercial venture (website) that appears to have went in an entirely different direction, but the MD style emulator code is open-source and available for personal use.
It was coded by one of the Valentina open-source pattern making project (now Seamly2D - though, original Valentina still available) team members, Nitish Reddy Parvatham. The name is tri3d_gazer (Tri3D [website] gazer), and is available as a MAC version.
It seems from what I have read, people want to use it, but can't get it to work on Windows (don't know how to explore/fix the code). I have a working version for myself on Windows from changing all the MAC paths to Windows in all the modules, so it can be done, just a little work. *HINT* simply change all the paths forward slashes (\) to back slashes (/), and it should work...
He uses the same "Triangle" tri-mesher as I do, but he links to it via a python module and it works behind the scene. While mine works directly with "Triangle" interactively via an integrated wrapper. Both get to same conclusion, but using different approaches. However, his sewing springs coding is far superior to my measly hacked together solution, and I am studying his work to see if I can utilize it with my vision of Grease Pencil ray-casting to draw seam lines with auto-creation.
Tri3D_gazer : https://bitbucket.org/nitish_116/tri3d_gazer/downloads/
Install/usage video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSOrc_rPAnM
* EDIT: Fixing broken image (Note to self -- do not delete thumbnail -- deletes body image)
Thanks a lot for the tips and the explanation, Syrus_Dante and DaremoK3.
I would like to avoid purchasing a Marvelous Designer,
so if something even slightly different could be done in Blender, it will be great.
I still have a personal licence for Marvelous Designer 2 and also have VWD Cloth and Hair Simulation,
so I need to experiment more with them.
Do you know, if VWD works with Daz Studio 4.10?
I am still keeping Daz Studio 4.9, just in case VWD does not work with the newer version.
This video shows the new interface of Blender 2.8. The tools showen are not new but access them has become much easier with clicking the icons instead of shortcuts.
Blender 2.8 - 7 Awesome Modeling Tools You Don't Want to Miss
And here I found a must have addon for to ease up UV unwraping and related tasks. It includes the UV Squares Addon I suggested once under the name Rectify.
TexTools for
Blender
http://renderhjs.net/textools/blender/
Demonstration Video (TexTools usage starts at 9:50)
Can't believe I'm saying this. Blender 2.8 will be left-click select by default
This update will get me on board with using it more.... very exciting!
2.80 Beta is now available. Much more than changing the default select to left click to be excited about.
5 Things You Should Know About Blender 2.80 (from the official Blender channel on Youtube, published today)
And it sucks, but should be easy to change.
When I first started using Blender 2.5 release (I'd dabbled with 2.49 but wasn't a fan.), I hated the right select - up until I realised it stopped me accidentally deselecting everything or selecting something by mistake.
It is easy to change - according to that video. The option to change appears right up front in the opening splash screen. I was one of those who switched to Left Mouse click in my User Prefs in the current and previous versions so this is a welcome change for me. The reasons given in the video are the same reasons I made that switch, i.e. to be consistent with every other application. However, the switch wasn't implemented well enough so they seem to have done the work to make it functional and natural throughout. I'll only know that for sure once I've tried it though.
I'm much more interested in the new features, however. Eevee and cloth sim are top of my list (though I think that the big improvements in cloth physics are still to come in future releases).
I'm so excited about this release. I was considering getting Marvelous Designer but with the new dynamic controls and tools I may hold off.
Wow, I just watched that Top 5 features video, and am now downloading. Looks awesome!
I've been playing with the new 2.8 Beta and it is really impressive. However, one of my main gripes about Blender is that it remains difficult to find out how to do the simplest things. The simple thing I want to do (which was never actually simple in Blender anyhow) is to close a panel. In the new interface, if you move the cursor to a corner or a panel, it changes to a cross-hair which can then be dragged to create (or split) a new panel. In previous releases you could then (carefully) grab an edge and drag it towards an adjoining panel to "join" or close it. That does not seem to work now and I can't figure out how to do it. Whatever I do I just keep creating new splits. So damn frustrating.
One way to close a window is to position the mouse over the line between the two panels so that the mouse cursor becomes a double-headed arrow. Now right-click (still have to right-click sometimes!). You should get a pop-up menu headed 'Area options', with two choices: Split Area and Join Area. Select 'Join Area'. You will see a big arrow indicating which way the join will go. Basically, move the mouse over the window you want rid of and left click somewhere in the window - gone!
The method I use in 2.7x - putting the mouse in the top corner so that the mouse cursor becomes a cross, then left-click and dragging towards the window to be closed and then releasing - works in the 2.8 beta dated 28th November. The little triangle in the corners has gone it seems but the function works once you have the cross-shaped mouse cursor.
Thanks. Doh - why didn't I notice the right-click options???
As for the corner cross, I can get it to make new windows ad-infinitum but the close/join is very hit and miss for me (mostly miss).
If I may ask another question. 2.8 has a new row of tabs along the top menu bar which are all what used to be called Layouts (now called workspaces, I believe). Hovering over the Plus tab, we are informed that to add a new one we can duplicate the current one or got to the User Configuration (which I take to mean the Preferences). However, I can't find anything to do with layouts or workspace tabs in the prefs. I would remove some of those I don't use but I'm worried that "Delete" means "gone for good" rather than "hide".
I do like the UI look & feel much better but it's taking me a while to find things I used to know where they were at in Blender.
Hmm, not sure on that. Looks like aside from duplicating the active workspace you can (only) open one of the pre-defined ones that isn't currently open - the already open ones are greyed out. It would seem a strange design decision to completely remove the definition of one of the pre-defined workspaces if you 'delete' it. The tooltip on the Delete menu option refers to deleting the 'active' workspace'.
Now I'm wondering whether and how you can save a custom workspace after you have made some changes to a new one. Perhaps save it as part of a startup file? The pre-defined ones won't suit everyone.
Exactly my thoughts. I'll just tak a chance and see what delete does. I spent a little more time setting up and saving the workspaces that I do use - like Sculpt and the Video Sequence Editor - and I did find that it is easy to rearrange those tabs into an order that suits you better.
Version 3 might be years away though. I read somewhere that they don't expect 2.8 to be a general release until mid-2019 so I would expect at least another two years before another major update. I've also noticed a couple of things that are not working as well as they did in 2.79. I use the Video Sequence Editor for rendering image sequences to a video format and that seems much slower in 2.8 and also the results are poor quality compared to previous output. I probably need to adjust some settings but I have no idea which - one of the drawbacks of Blender is that it gives you so many options that you need to be an expert to know how to find them and what all of them do. I downloaded the free HitFilm Express to do the same job and, without experience in that software, was getting better results than Blender within an hour.
All that said, I'm still a big fan of Blender and I do like the new interface. But I'll probably only ever be a casual user.
Yes, that is a good point. 3.0 will be almost definately a while in coming. If you try holding your breath, you probably won't live to see it ;)
Also, a lot can happen between plan and actualization. But, it does look llike the team is on the right track now and with the huge successes they have had with 2.8 (well beyond what they thought they would be able to do with the current code base according to videos from them I've watched...) I have high hopes and a strong positive leaning. It's all very exciting. It really looks like we are on the edge of something revolutionary, not just evolutionary.
In a related note, I think Unreal Engine and Unity will take on a whole new level of significance going forward as we move into a stronger 3D based world. Just as we moved from text based to visual based interfaces, I think the move to 3D will be just as evolutionary, if not more so. And, just as such, while visual interfaces are ubiquitous, it did not do away with text based terminals, they became stronger in a way as they focused on their strengths... I think this (r)evolution will have similar growth, similar inherent weaknesses in some cases and a strengthening of the previous generation technology that manages to survive the evolution. People will scream about how terrible the new enviroments are in some cases, and in some cases they will even be right, but the new environment will most assuredlly come to dominate over time. And it will take time. My thoughts for what it's worth. ;)
At my age, I might not live to see it even if I breathe normally.
I can't help thinking that if Blender didn't try to be all things to all men they might get releases out quicker. It seems to me they have quite a small core team of developers who need to spread their time over a huge list of projects. My example of the free HitFilm video editor/compositor is an example of something they could drop from Blender - there are other free/Open Source solutions out there. Maybe I'm not appreciating the amount of work done by those in the general community?
Well it's a good point.
One advantage of modularizing the code is that individual components could be modified or dropped as became apparent in usefullness more easily. Currently, the code is so closely integrated that any given component has effects on other components that might require attention that it otherwise might not get or conversly not get attention due to complexities of associated code. There are a number of video editing solutions including free but not open source "Davinci Resolve" which I use, and Natron, a very powerful free open source editor. I'm not making the case for or against video editing in Blender directly as I think there are a lot of pros and cons here that would need discussing, but rather making the point that moving forward affords a lot more flexibility in making these kinds of decisions.
As to the size of the team, it appears you missed my comment** about how we've been seeing an increase in outside groups getting involved in development as well as the very active add-on market that is only typically seen otherwise in Unity and Unreal Engine at this level at this point in time. Commercial software does support add-ons, but nowhere near what we see in the three previously mentioned cases* which specifically go out of their way to provide a friendly environment for add-on development. Many of the best features of Blender such as Eevee started out as an add-on and became part of the core when their usefullness to the base community became evident enough to justify incorporating into the core itself.
This fundamental different aspect of development along with anticipated changes suggest Blender could be part of a larger fundamental shift in our approach to developing tools going forward. I of course don't know this to be the case but do believe it is possible.
* Yes, I realized Unreal & Unity are commercial products... refering more to the typical approach by commercial software.
** Edit: actually, it looks like I was the one who missed something in your post "Maybe I'm not appreciating the amount of work done by those in the general community?" ... Yes the core team does do the core development (with the help of added code/developers at times) and deserve full credit for that, but there is also quite a dynamic that exists between the core team and the larger community that we don't typically see in software development pretty much anywhere else.
...I agree about mdularity. If all you need is a modelling and UV wrapping utility you should be able to have it without all the other features.
Looking at the latest Beta release I am actually rather impressed The UI is much cleaner, I like the tool and editing Icons as well as the collection option, the workspace camera control, and tab setup (sort of like Carrara).
I have a question for those using Blender to model for DS. I have an architectural set that I've been working on for over a year. Now it's time to move the pieces into DAZ, and I'm having a noob problem. I'm exporting two objects together, a vanity table and its drawer, with the intention of rigging them. The vanity table is one single object in Blender (not a collection of parented objects), and the drawer is a second single object. I'm saving them together in one .OBJ export, because the tutorial on creating content from Dark Edge Design seems to indicate that's what you do when you plan to use the Figure Setup pane for rigging.
My export settings are shown in one graphic, and the other shows what I get when I load the object into the Figure Setup pane. My problem is that I expected two bones--one for the vanity, one for its drawer--but for some reason the objects' material zones are appearing as bones. What am I doing wrong???
@Inkubo I think it is because you have "Material Groups" checked in your blender export settings. You don't really need that, as long as you have vertex groups for your bones, and you have "Write Materials" checked.
Personally, I would join your table and drawer as one obj file before export. As long as they are separate vertex groups, they will rig fine.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot!