Hi all you DAZ users,

So I have a dforce weightmap node attached to a dress and that dress has its surfaces also dforce enabled. If I run a simulation, does the weightmap node supersede the surface dforce settings? OR, does the surface settings supersede the weightmap node? OR does the dress explode? lol

Thanks all!

The node is just for accessing the weightmaps, they actually belong to the dForce modifier itself and they modifiy whichever proeprties they apply to (by multiplication - so if the dynamic strength is set to 0 in the surface properties then no weight map can make it non-zero, but if the strength is set to 100% then a weightmap can set the actual strength on a vertex to any value from 0 to 100%).

RHaseltine posted at 7:42 PM Fri, 1 November 2024 - #4490934

The node is just for accessing the weightmaps, they actually belong to the dForce modifier itself and they modifiy whichever proeprties they apply to (by multiplication - so if the dynamic strength is set to 0 in the surface properties then no weight map can make it non-zero, but if the strength is set to 100% then a weightmap can set the actual strength on a vertex to any value from 0 to 100%).

Thanks Richard,

So as long as the Dynamic strength on the surface attributes is not zero, the weightmap node serves only as a modifier to the other surface attributes?

The weightmap is always a modifier, it's just that it cannot do anything if the slider value is already zero. In general the sliders in the Surfaces pane would have the maximum value you wanted anywhere on that surface, or even on the whole model, and then you would use a weightmap to reduce that in the areas that didn't need the maximum value.

RHaseltine posted at 4:03 PM Sat, 2 November 2024 - #4490962

The weightmap is always a modifier, it's just that it cannot do anything if the slider value is already zero. In general the sliders in the Surfaces pane would have the maximum value you wanted anywhere on that surface, or even on the whole model, and then you would use a weightmap to reduce that in the areas that didn't need the maximum value.

That makes much more sense, thanks Richard!