Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?



  • @Deecey Actually, I believe that DAZ scale and orientation is pretty close to what Blender's is. I'm pretty certain it's closer than Poser's.



  • @Deecey said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    I guess I assumed that if you import Poser objects "at Poser scale" into Marvelous Designer, that it would automatically convert to cm or mm or whatever scale MD needs. And then, when you export back out, you export at Poser scale to get it back into Poser. Is that correct?

    Now, thus far I've only created content for Poser figures. But say you want to also create for DS figures such as Genesis and the like, and refit the Poser clothing you made in MD to one of the DAZ figures. I'm assuming you export from DAZ Studio at "Poser scale", and then import into MD at "Poser scale."

    If you export from Poser in collada format, the scale is given in the file:
    0_1507745822319_Knipsel.JPG
    I use as a standard cm units for my collada exports.
    For the prefitter I used the 'raw' .obj's and imported in MD using Poser scale.

    Poser scale of course is confusing (8' or 8.6'?). The Poser export assumes 8.6'per PNU while figures are developed for 8' per PNU. I use therefore an import scale of 93% to get figures realistic size and matching the real life patterns I use most often. Export at 8.6'/PNU then gives good fit in Poser.

    MD itself works in mm units, so the (x,y,z) used inside MD will be 10 times as large as read from this file.
    On export to .obj for use in Poser I tell MD to export in Poser units. If I would export for use in DS I would export in cm units because that is what DS uses.

    All apps use right-handed axis system with y-axis vertical and z-axis towards the default camera position.
    (I stand corrected here.)

    That answers your question?



  • @F_Verbaas Blender's z axis is vertical, I believe, but I'd have to check to be sure. Yep, just checked. z axis is up in Blender.



  • I export my Collada file using Poser Native Units from Poser, import (Avatar) into MD in mm (Default). I export the clothing .obj at Poser 8.6' and they usually fit perfect. Not saying this is the best way to do it though, but after exporting some very huge clothes when I first started out I found these settings to work. If I export the Collada file at Poser Native Units and import them into MD at Poser scale it don't work for me, or if I export the clothes model at something other than 8.6' either.
    The question I would ask experienced users of Marvelous Designer is do you use the triangle mesh in the cloth room or the quad mesh? I was kind of disappointed with the quad mesh quality, as far as making conforming clothes from it anyway. I waited to get MD until the quad mesh was implemented because I wanted to make conforming clothing. Now I think MD is only suited for dynamic clothing, which it does very well. I would as soon just model clothing from scratch instead of re-meshing. I have been using the triangle mesh with the point density set to 10 - 15 in Poser myself, but I was wondering what others do.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @ribroast - re. tris vs. quads - it helps me to visualise what's going to happen by keeping in mind that a mesh will only bend at the edges. If you bend a mesh with a regular grid-like flow of edges against that up/down flow (i.e. diagonally) you'll get obvious jagged artefacts (this is true for any deformation). Polygon faces don't bend, vertices don't bend, just the edges - this is why edge flow in a mesh built for animation is so important. With dynamic clothing a piece of cloth must be able to bend in any direction, so the ideal edge flow is as random as possible. Artefacts will still occur but as there is no regular edge flow they will not be anything like as noticeable.

    Therefore for making dynamic cloth items I would say triangles are best.



  • @caisson The alternative is to keep the polygons small. The only problem with that is that it will make your clothing polygon heavy.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @eclark1849 - yup. You can of course use subdivision so the hit to poly count happens at render time. It all depends as usual on what you're doing & the result you need ;)



  • Tris have no orientation so they give best results during the creation phase. Performance of quads varies relative to their orientation. Also, the human eye picks up repetition very easily. Quads are regular and therefore the artefacts they produce can be more annoying. Quads also can become unstable in the simulation much more easily than tris. The number of quads is less, but they are mathematically much more complicated. I use quads only for strips and straps that are to be bent in one direction only because they would look 'wobbly' when made out of tris.
    If you need straight and relatively sharp bends add internal lines to force aligned edges there.
    The mesh can be controlled fully by the internal lines. Define the loops you need and let MD take care of the rest.



  • @caisson
    Agreed on using tris for dynamic clothing.

    To that I would add, if you are going to use Marvelous Designer to make CONFORMING clothing, note that MD's quads don't often follow topology that is easy to break into clean groups. The quads that MD creates follow the folds and wrinkles in the clothing. And that clothing often isn't symmetrical, which can affect how weight maps are copied from one side of the clothing to another.

    If your goal is to create symmetrical clothing, or clothing that has nice clean edges that you can break into nice clean groups, you'll have to retopologize the clothing that is created in MD. And retopologizing also leads to creating new UV maps for it.



  • @Deecey said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    If your goal is to create symmetrical clothing, or clothing that has nice clean edges that you can break into nice clean groups, you'll have to retopologize the clothing that is created in MD. And retopologizing also leads to creating new UV maps for it.

    I have never understood why the retopologizing needs to change the uv's. In the end it is just a matter of tiling the same islands with different tiles. Seems like a flaw in the process.
    And with the chalk tool in MD6 and 7 you can make clean edges where you want. The chalk lines are not restricted to mesh points and they can be converted into internal lines, which in the mesh appear as edges.
    If symmety is required best use only half the model and mirror it.



  • @fverbaas Wait didn't you JUST say that tris have no orientation and polys do? That alone would seem to require redoing the UVs. Of course, I suck at texturing so, maybe not.



  • @fverbaas said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    And with the chalk tool in MD6 and 7 you can make clean edges where you want. The chalk lines are not restricted to mesh points and they can be converted into internal lines, which in the mesh appear as edges.

    Aha, thanks for the tip! Always something to learn.



  • @eclark1849 said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    @fverbaas Wait didn't you JUST say that tris have no orientation and polys do? That alone would seem to require redoing the UVs. Of course, I suck at texturing so, maybe not.

    The way MD works is, you draw a flat pattern (like a sewing pattern) in 2D. The pattern is made of different pieces that you "sew" together. Then you arrange the flat pieces around the model and drape it over the figure. The pieces are pulled together around the figure.

    The clothing now exists in two modes. The 2d view still has the flat pattern pieces as you originally drew them, and this is what creates the UVs. Each piece of the pattern can be converted from quads to tris and vice versa very easily inside MD, without affecting the flat UVs that are generated by the 2D pattern.



  • @Deecey Per your description, looks like MD is a version of 3dsMax clothing creation....alt text



  • @eclark1849
    I meant to say that the tris in a mesh have no particular direction of their edges. The normals of adjacent tris have the same direction of course.



  • Oops forgot the link



  • @JAFO said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    Oops forgot the link

    Uhhhh, it's pretty much the same thing, it's awesome... time to check 3DS Max prices again... GAH!! $1.5K per year! That's insane!

    Let's compare with Maya... uh?... same price!!??... and both are from Autodesk! I don't get it - why Autodesk sells both Maya and 3DS Max for the same thing, at the same price? I always thought that Maya was the top end and 3DS Max was like a middle end, but they are exactly the same price.

    Houdini is like $200 per year for the Indie license, and apparently can do much of the same as Maya and 3DS Max (although it has a limit on render nodes).



  • Question to whoever uses iClone... I can create new clothes in iClone with Character Creator, right?

    Is that easy? Does that work? Can I create really new clothes or am I limited to the ones that come with the product?

    I see that iClone + Character Creator (for poses) + 3DXchange (to export/import OBJ and create morphs) is $400, no subscription needed.. that's quite attractive!



  • @fbs7 said in Alternatives to Marvelous Designer?:

    Question to whoever uses iClone... I can create new clothes in iClone with Character Creator, right?

    Is that easy? Does that work? Can I create really new clothes or am I limited to the ones that come with the product?

    I see that iClone + Character Creator (for poses) + 3DXchange (to export/import OBJ and create morphs) is $400, no subscription needed.. that's quite attractive!

    Also, can I import a mesh, rig and morph it in iClone with CC and 3DXchange?



  • @fbs7
    Hmmm ... can you create clothing in iClone? No, it works pretty much the same as Poser, you'll need to model clothing in a modeler and then rig them with the iClone pipeline stuff (3DXChange and iClone) ... but note that I haven't dug into this to see what is involved. Was thinking about it though, when Chuck and I were working on Maisie! 8-).

    Character creator is kind of like the face room on steroids. What I find brilliant about it is there are layers that allow you to add makeup, change body colors and add facial hair and stuff, and there are controls that allow you to change the APPEARANCE of clothing, like in the materials and such, but the clothing meshes pretty much just change shape with the figure like in Poser.

    Oh wait. One more edit. If you want to do face photo fits in IClone, like the Face Room is supposed to do, you have to get Crazy Talk.

    So by the time you get iClone Pro, 3DXChange, and CrazyTalk, to create stuff similar to what you can create in Poser, you are spending major bucks (in addition to whatever modeler you use). Very slick software, though, hope SM pays attention to it. 8-)