How to prevent pocking through in multiple layer fabric?

James

https://prnt.sc/kSWIfqP_OWCk

I've often experience pocking through when there are multiple layer fabrics in simulation.
Is there a solution for this?

I've always has to send to blender to fix it, and import it back again as morph, just take times especially if I had to do it multiple times.
 

crosswind

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

If it's the case that you do need the fold, there're a couple of ways:

1) Control the draping of the top by tweaking Stiffness and or Velocity properties on its dynamic surfaces... or tweaking the weight on the dForce weight node
2) And / or add a Buckling Stiffness Weight on the weight node.

James

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Yes

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

So, in proper hijab, women always wear like an "underwear" for the head before the main hijab. The shape and style is varies. The purpose is to hide the hair properly.

Meanwhile in this case, it acts not as the "underwear."
I was going to use one piece of fabric only, and it goes around the head. But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.
The long hidden one functions as an anchor (not moving),  the big one I stiched it to the hidden piece. In DAZ The hijab itself is one object with two surfaces (well three with a little surface to pin the hijab for not falling on the back of the head).

It should seen as one piece though, folded in certain way.
By stiching it, I can create an illusion, like it's one piece that's folded.
Before simulation:
https://prnt.sc/PSio6LtAYdli

https://prnt.sc/gqbUFRkBwg76

Without this trick very difficult to keep everything in place while folding the garment here and there. Even with the help of pins.

lilweep

James said:

But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.

MD and Daz are two different softwares.

You might need something in MD to create the garment, but it doesnt mean you need it in Daz when fitting and dforcing the garment.

If something is always going to be hidden in Daz and you do not need it in Daz, then you can remove that part of the mesh.

crosswind

James said:

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Yes

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

So, in proper hijab, women always wear like an "underwear" for the head before the main hijab. The shape and style is varies. The purpose is to hide the hair properly.

Meanwhile in this case, it acts not as the "underwear."
I was going to use one piece of fabric only, and it goes around the head. But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.
The long hidden one functions as an anchor (not moving),  the big one I stiched it to the hidden piece. In DAZ The hijab itself is one object with two surfaces (well three with a little surface to pin the hijab for not falling on the back of the head).

It should seen as one piece though, folded in certain way.
By stiching it, I can create an illusion, like it's one piece that's folded.
Before simulation:
https://prnt.sc/PSio6LtAYdli

https://prnt.sc/gqbUFRkBwg76

Without this trick very difficult to keep everything in place while folding the garment here and there. Even with the help of pins.

Well, if so, there may be two more alternatives:

1) Sew them together in MD, with internal line if needed... though probably they're not sewn in really life. Since you made separate patterns, you can define different simulation properties on them. And there won't be poke-thru on "sewn parts" in DS.

2) Export all pattern as a Thin + Welded geometry, then make the underneath piece as a dynamic surface add-on in DS... it won't drape other than support only. This workflow will be a bit complex.

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

Richard Haseltine

crosswind said:

James said:

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Yes

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

So, in proper hijab, women always wear like an "underwear" for the head before the main hijab. The shape and style is varies. The purpose is to hide the hair properly.

Meanwhile in this case, it acts not as the "underwear."
I was going to use one piece of fabric only, and it goes around the head. But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.
The long hidden one functions as an anchor (not moving),  the big one I stiched it to the hidden piece. In DAZ The hijab itself is one object with two surfaces (well three with a little surface to pin the hijab for not falling on the back of the head).

It should seen as one piece though, folded in certain way.
By stiching it, I can create an illusion, like it's one piece that's folded.
Before simulation:
https://prnt.sc/PSio6LtAYdli

https://prnt.sc/gqbUFRkBwg76

Without this trick very difficult to keep everything in place while folding the garment here and there. Even with the help of pins.

Well, if so, there may be two more alternatives:

1) Sew them together in MD, with internal line if needed... though probably they're not sewn in really life. Since you made separate patterns, you can define different simulation properties on them. And there won't be poke-thru on "sewn parts" in DS.

2) Export all pattern as a Thin + Welded geometry, then make the underneath piece as a dynamic surface add-on in DS... it won't drape other than support only. This workflow will be a bit complex.

It does drape, but its collisions are at vertices only

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

Richard Haseltine

If you make them two different objects then you can use the Collision Layer proerpty in the Surfaces pane to give the outer a higher value than the inner, telling dForce which should be on top - that should at least reduce poke-through. You can't do this between surfaces in a single item (even though you can give them different values).

crosswind

Richard Haseltine said:

crosswind said:

James said:

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Yes

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

So, in proper hijab, women always wear like an "underwear" for the head before the main hijab. The shape and style is varies. The purpose is to hide the hair properly.

Meanwhile in this case, it acts not as the "underwear."
I was going to use one piece of fabric only, and it goes around the head. But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.
The long hidden one functions as an anchor (not moving),  the big one I stiched it to the hidden piece. In DAZ The hijab itself is one object with two surfaces (well three with a little surface to pin the hijab for not falling on the back of the head).

It should seen as one piece though, folded in certain way.
By stiching it, I can create an illusion, like it's one piece that's folded.
Before simulation:
https://prnt.sc/PSio6LtAYdli

https://prnt.sc/gqbUFRkBwg76

Without this trick very difficult to keep everything in place while folding the garment here and there. Even with the help of pins.

Well, if so, there may be two more alternatives:

1) Sew them together in MD, with internal line if needed... though probably they're not sewn in really life. Since you made separate patterns, you can define different simulation properties on them. And there won't be poke-thru on "sewn parts" in DS.

2) Export all pattern as a Thin + Welded geometry, then make the underneath piece as a dynamic surface add-on in DS... it won't drape other than support only. This workflow will be a bit complex.

It does drape, but its collisions are at vertices only

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

To be more precisely... I meant that dynamic add-ons themselves won't drape. In fact, they just follow and support the draping of its parent on which they're rigged... so as to maintain its parent's shape with additional springs.

Edit: Mada's dForce Gorgon Set is a typical example. If turning off Visible in Simulation on Gorgon Tail, all its supportive add-ons won't drape at all, i.e. nothing will be simulated ~~

Richard Haseltine

crosswind said:

Richard Haseltine said:

crosswind said:

James said:

Well, is it the result of using dForce simulation ?

Yes

Are they two separate pieces of garments or just a single piece ? Why do you need that "long fold" which seems to be always hidden underneath ?

So, in proper hijab, women always wear like an "underwear" for the head before the main hijab. The shape and style is varies. The purpose is to hide the hair properly.

Meanwhile in this case, it acts not as the "underwear."
I was going to use one piece of fabric only, and it goes around the head. But it is so diffiicult to do in MD. so I made two pieces.
The long hidden one functions as an anchor (not moving),  the big one I stiched it to the hidden piece. In DAZ The hijab itself is one object with two surfaces (well three with a little surface to pin the hijab for not falling on the back of the head).

It should seen as one piece though, folded in certain way.
By stiching it, I can create an illusion, like it's one piece that's folded.
Before simulation:
https://prnt.sc/PSio6LtAYdli

https://prnt.sc/gqbUFRkBwg76

Without this trick very difficult to keep everything in place while folding the garment here and there. Even with the help of pins.

Well, if so, there may be two more alternatives:

1) Sew them together in MD, with internal line if needed... though probably they're not sewn in really life. Since you made separate patterns, you can define different simulation properties on them. And there won't be poke-thru on "sewn parts" in DS.

2) Export all pattern as a Thin + Welded geometry, then make the underneath piece as a dynamic surface add-on in DS... it won't drape other than support only. This workflow will be a bit complex.

It does drape, but its collisions are at vertices only

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

To be more precisely... I meant that dynamic add-ons themselves won't drape. In fact, they just follow and support the draping of its parent on which they're rigged... so as to maintain its parent's shape with additional springs.

Edit: Mada's dForce Gorgon Set is a typical example. If turning off Visible in Simulation on Gorgon Tail, all its supportive add-ons won't drape at all, i.e. nothing will be simulated ~~

That doesn't distinguish, since the vertices of the add-ons align with vertices in the - now non-dynamic - tail and so cannot move anyway.

crosswind

.....

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

To be more precisely... I meant that dynamic add-ons themselves won't drape. In fact, they just follow and support the draping of its parent on which they're rigged... so as to maintain its parent's shape with additional springs.

Edit: Mada's dForce Gorgon Set is a typical example. If turning off Visible in Simulation on Gorgon Tail, all its supportive add-ons won't drape at all, i.e. nothing will be simulated ~~

That doesn't distinguish, since the vertices of the add-ons align with vertices in the - now non-dynamic - tail and so cannot move anyway.

I don't think that can be proved....  I unfitted the add-ons from the tail, did the same process, the add-ons couldn't be simulated either.

Richard Haseltine

crosswind said:

.....

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

To be more precisely... I meant that dynamic add-ons themselves won't drape. In fact, they just follow and support the draping of its parent on which they're rigged... so as to maintain its parent's shape with additional springs.

Edit: Mada's dForce Gorgon Set is a typical example. If turning off Visible in Simulation on Gorgon Tail, all its supportive add-ons won't drape at all, i.e. nothing will be simulated ~~

That doesn't distinguish, since the vertices of the add-ons align with vertices in the - now non-dynamic - tail and so cannot move anyway.

I don't think that can be proved....  I unfitted the add-ons from the tail, did the same process, the add-ons couldn't be simulated either.

Sorry, I am not sure what I was thinking of - but obviously wrong (or, I may hope, a relic of something long-since changed)

crosswind

Richard Haseltine said:

crosswind said:

.....

However, as lilweep mentioned, if making garments for being used in DS or game ready, the principle better be: make less rather than make more ~~ esp. with the parts that never show.

To be more precisely... I meant that dynamic add-ons themselves won't drape. In fact, they just follow and support the draping of its parent on which they're rigged... so as to maintain its parent's shape with additional springs.

Edit: Mada's dForce Gorgon Set is a typical example. If turning off Visible in Simulation on Gorgon Tail, all its supportive add-ons won't drape at all, i.e. nothing will be simulated ~~

That doesn't distinguish, since the vertices of the add-ons align with vertices in the - now non-dynamic - tail and so cannot move anyway.

I don't think that can be proved....  I unfitted the add-ons from the tail, did the same process, the add-ons couldn't be simulated either.

Sorry, I am not sure what I was thinking of - but obviously wrong (or, I may hope, a relic of something long-since changed)

NVM ! 

James

Ok, I think I'll just reduce the dforce weight map on the top head part. Beside, looks better if the top area doesn't drape.