Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 28 11:20 am)
Can I 'deflate' a figure in frame 1 and have her 'inflate' to fit snugly inside a tight-fitting prop (like a clear perspex corset - Think Helmut Newton)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, you can. In fact that is one of the tricks people use to fit figures into tight clothes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Would I have to reverse the normals on my prop mesh before inflating her? (She would be approaching the mesh from the back face - does that make a difference? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It shouldn't matter. If you have black areas showing in your render afterward, try clicking on normals forward in the material room and then it should render okay. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Would I do it with just her affected body parts and use the result to make morph targets for her, or would I do it with her whole body? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I not sure you even need to do a morph target. Just have the shrunken body in the first frame and the final shape in the last frame and everything just line up right.
I've never used spawn morph target in as long as I have had Poser (over-reliance on what I can download). But it should be possible. I've just started modeling clothes in an actual modeler. I use the modeling program to make clothes with simple shapes, but I export it and use a dynamic simulation to get it to lay over Victoria's contours in a no-morph zero pose. Though I've never done exactly what you described, a dynamic cloth simulation just deforms the prop, just like magnets. There shouldn't be any difference between them as far as making morph targets. Like Fazzel said, doing a morph target seems like an extra unnecessary step, but if you have a reason for it I think it should be possible.
Maybe I am misreading here, but it seems to me the question was the other way round. Can you press the body in the shape of the (rigid) prop?
The cloth room assumes the flexibility to adapt is on the side of the cloth. The body vertices are not affected by the cloth.
If you want a tight perspex corset that squeezes the fleshy parts and makes them bellow at the perimeter of the corset you may have to go a long way. What you are looking for is internal pressure; something not provided by Poser (not by Poser 5 at least).
Proper modelling of that phenomenon requires re-meshing of the edge area (unless the form of your corset matches the meshing of the body, of course).
One free tool able to simulate surface tension, internal pressure and gravity at the same time is Surface Evolver:
http://www.susqu.edu/facstaff/b/brakke/evolver/
I have played around with an earlier version a long time ago, and I think it could be possible to use it for the intended purpose, provided you sit down and wite routines in C to establish collision of the body vertices with the corset, and utilities to convert the .obj files.....
Great, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm going to investigate this more seriously now. I'm thinking of using this for developing some products and the morph target route will give them a broader appeal. From what I see posted here, a great many Poser users are afraid to go near the cloth room and are more comfortable sticking with the injection morph + conforming clothing route. Dynamics open up a whole world of possibilities that I'm keen to explore.
OOps, I cross-posted with Bagoas. Yes, that is what I was asking - can the body be 'clothified' so when it expands outward it is restricted wherever it is covered by the corset (and bulges a little at all the edges). I'm in no position to write any code to help with this, so if the available tools can't do it I'll go back to morphs and magnets.
You may also want to study the Wardrobe Wizard. It appears to me the techniques used there could be applied for what you want, to some extent. Unfortunately I will have not time to search these these things out myself until I retire, 25 years from now... For the bulges you may want to look at using a displacement map, allowing you to define the local deformation of the skin independent from the local grid definition. Anyway: have fun! B.
There is a tutorial posted here that explains how to turn body parts into "cloth" and use them as a prop. Thereby creating the illusion of presure on said body part... It is fairly in depth, but essentially your are using a clothified version of the body part, at the last point of the simulation... I just did a search and can't find the tut (this seems to be happening to me a lot lately.) I know it is there, just not sure what it is titled at this point.
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
I've just started playing with the cloth room (P6) and I'm trying to grasp the big picture, particularly the whole 'timeline' aspect of it - what I need to set up in frame 1 in order to get what I want in frame 30 etc. I can see that I can clothify a prop and have it shrink down to fit a body, but can I have it work the other way too? Can I 'deflate' a figure in frame 1 and have her 'inflate' to fit snugly inside a tight-fitting prop (like a clear perspex corset - Think Helmut Newton)? This would allow me to make the prop first and fit her to it, rather than shaping her body with magnets first and then making the prop to fit her shaped body. Would I have to reverse the normals on my prop mesh before inflating her? (She would be approaching the mesh from the back face - does that make a difference? Would I do it with just her affected body parts and use the result to make morph targets for her, or would I do it with her whole body? Any feedback would be enormously useful, I know so little about this that I could either waste ages trying something that is absolutely not possible, or I could give up because I was missing it by just one small setting. Thanks in advance Ob