Coming soon: Voronoi (and more) Shatter Tool for DAZ Studio [Commercial]

umblefugly

Coming Soon: Voronoi (and more) Shatter Tool for DAZ Studio

A DAZ-native fracture and debris tool for breaking props, glass, stone, wood, walls, and impact objects directly inside DAZ Studio.

Teaser Feature List

• Static mesh shattering directly in DAZ Studio
• PhysX-based fracture simulation
• Bakeable animated debris results
• Multiple fracture styles:
  • Uniform chunks
  • Local impact breaks
  • Radial burst patterns
  • Wood splinters
• Fast and Robust shatter backends
• Material preservation for generated shards
• Custom inside fracture colors and textures
• Mesh Prep tools for cleaner shatter results
• Close Holes / repair support for problem meshes
• Per-object simulation controls
• Break on impact, frame, force, or proximity
• Explosion, radial, directional, and upward burst shard motion
• Static shard push-apart for quick visual previews
• Simulation cleanup tools
• Save and load sim package setups
• glTF 2.0 export
• Designed for DAZ Studio artists who want destruction workflows without leaving DAZ

Break it. Sim it. Bake it. All inside DAZ Studio.

Note: Initial release support is planned for DAZ Studio 4.24.0.x. Support for the 2026 DAZ Studio SDK will be evaluated after the SDK/API stabilizes.

 

background

Sounds interesting. How much is it influenced by the existing topology of the object that you put into it?

umblefugly

For the current V1 shatter system, the fracture pattern is not driven by the original mesh topology in the way a pre-cut polygon modeler would be. It is driven mainly by:

• the generated seed points
• the chosen pattern: Uniform, Local, Radial, Splinters
• impact point / radius where applicable
• backend: Fast or Robust
• the source mesh volume/bounds/surface intersection
• mesh prep result

So a cube with 12 triangles and a cube with many clean coplanar subdivisions should generally produce the same kind of shatter if their shape, scale, settings, and watertightness are equivalent.

But topology still matters for reliability and cleanup:

• It should be watertight/closed for best results.
• Non-manifold edges can confuse inside/outside and cap generation.
• Self-intersections or internal shells can create bad shards.
• Extremely thin geometry has special behavior and higher risk.
• Bad normals, duplicate faces, degenerate triangles, or unwelded seams can affect mesh prep and cap quality.
• UV/material slots affect material preservation, not the actual fracture pattern.
• Organic/Genesis-style internal geometry remains a risk case but thus far has no issues.

So the short version: topology does not artistically control the fracture layout right now; geometry shape and settings do. But bad topology can still make the fracture fail, generate unsafe boundary cases, or require fallback cleanup.

Sorel

Hell yeah, looking forward to this.

umblefugly

Sorel said:

Hell yeah, looking forward to this.

Me too lol. I'm just working on some speedups, its pretty fast right now, 2000 pieces simulated over 60 frames CPU shatter + GPU for PhysX + full material/shader copy takes just under 30 seconds on a 10900k, 64 GB DDR4, and a 3090 Ti. 
 

jjoyner

This looks interesting.  I find that too many of the products that feature broken building, etc. are too clean in their breaks.  Based on the three images that you uploaded, it looks like your product will improve on the broken look of objects.

umblefugly

jjoyner said:

This looks interesting.  I find that too many of the products that feature broken building, etc. are too clean in their breaks.  Based on the three images that you uploaded, it looks like your product will improve on the broken look of objects.

Yes, for version 1 I just want to lay the groundwork for basics, then if theres enough interest Id like to eventually get it to do more stuff like Pulldownit, RayFireTool,FractureFX etc. for a legit destruction pipeline for DS.