Hi niccipb and yes… thanks.
Well lets see… for ‘Hard objects’ like buckles, you can use Rigidity Maps, however they only work ie: retain their shape, when morphing the figure. They don’t work with translations, moving joints. They would still distort.
Hmmmm…. I have oftentimes thought that the creators of software, interfaces and just about all things should have some folks on the team that only had basic skills. What they perceive it should do. ‘Rigidity Maps’ for instance. It seems like if you set something rigid it should remain rigid. A bra hook for example. There is no way a person could create every possible use for a bra so that the hook wouldn’t distort, unless you could set it as a truly rigid item. I would have no idea how many poses might be used or created to begin to create morphs for something like that.
To me, rigidity should allow me to perhaps set it rigid in X and Y and not in Z. So, as a chest gets thicker or thinner, it moves forward or backwards, but not get taller, shorter, wider or more narrow. But apparently my ‘perceived’ idea about how rigidity should work is not actually how it works. Or, weight maps… If I map/color that hook blue, it seems like it should not distort either.
But then I think it should be easy and included… gravity… where you could set a bone to always point down (or to any other fixed angle), yet still avoid collisions. Then you would need pendulum/momentum/swing (harder programming)... But that is a totally different thread.
As for your examples, you would need to create morphs to keep the shapes of parts of your clothing that have a specific shape, when you change the figures shape.
So for example, a sea-shell bra. As you change Genesis from one female shape to another, the shells will distort to follow Genesis. If you want the shells to keep a set shape, but shrink or grow to match the figure, you would create a morph for the shells for that figure shape and name it FBMfigureshape. If you were to use a Rigidity map for this, then the shells would keep their shape and size. So while the shells may cover a small breasted figure, if you dialed a morph with say, very large breasts, then the shells may only cover the nipples.
In my example, the cups being like baby moon hubcaps… slightly domed and round. As the breast shape changes, I’m seeing those cups as needing to follow only the center vertice of the breast so as to avoid poke through, but not deform in other ways. Imagine the issue if they were Madonna-like cones?
So, maybe rigidity maps actually can do what I want, as long as I don’t care about scaling? For instance large breast down to no breast child. Now I need to go look to see if rigidity maps can work in only specific axis. For instance, if the green strap was a metal plate and the cups round metal medallions… can I set the green strap to be rigid in Y and Z but stretch in X? Something has to stretch or break!
So for your second image what you would do is adjust the fit and shape of the bra to V5 in your modeler and import that back in through Morph Loader Pro and name it FBMVictoria5. Now every time you dial Genesis to V5 your custom morph will be applied. You would do the same for any other shapes you want to support.
Darn… If we were talking about a medallion on a chain necklace (chain conforms which medallion remains rigid and only avoids collision), that would mean morphs for every figure. Genesis, V5, M5 and every new figure released. Wouldn’t it?
If Rigidity maps are to difficult to use (and they can be) then just using the FBM morphs will help in keeping there shape.
It seems like I read somewhere that rigidity maps were buggy in Daz 4? Is that correct? If so, is this fixed in 4.5?
And all ideas are welcome! There are normally multiple methods to the same end in CAD… with generally one being most efficient. I’m hoping to land on some good techniques for these types of challenges.
I’ll keep digesting what you have written here. I’m adjusting what ‘I think’ Daz should be able to do, to what it actually can do. Thanks!