How do i get the "buff" to fall and fold like the wanted picture? It only stands up like a cardboardroll...
>>642683I've tried out different presets in the cloth modifier, but it keeps standing up-op
>>642683Have you tried STARTING the simulation?
>>642692did you see my picture? Yes, that is what i get after simulation..
>>642683Sometimes simulations bug if the verts are perfectly aligned with the pull of gravity. It sounds weird, but you are essentially standing a pencil on its point right now. Try tilting the column of cloth slightly or making a tiny bulge in the the middle of it.It could also be the cloth settings you are using. I am not familiar with that programs sim settings so I can't help you there. However, the visuals you provided make me think it is the above mentioned bug.
>>642702I tried your first tip. I rotated it 2 degrees and added a lift animation to the foundation it stands on to try to force crush it... Sadly it didnt wotk. Still getting the same stiff unbendy/unfolding roll. I have tried different presets too.
>>642683That's what you get for not using Marvelous
>>642683That's what you get for not using Blender. Blender has this nice feature where you get lots of approximation errors in the mesh itself, so it will collapse under its own weight regardless of how small is the force of gravity, always giving you the result you seek, or, at least, some kind of result.
>>642713I want Marvelous, and i do plan to get it.
>>642713>>642758>Using marvelous scamHahaha, imagine being this cucked. Blender's cloth simulation is miles ahead.
>>642759That might be, but i'm not gonna get blender and learn it
>>642759???Not really. Marvelous has excellent simulation.
>>642761Don't worry, it's just another Blendlet delusion.Marvelous Designer is fine, and quite economical for what it provides.(It's also on permanent sale at CGPeers.)
>>642759Sigh, it's people like you give Blender a bad rap. Even in the very very very theoretical situation where Blender did have more efficient cloth simulation than Marvelous, who would wanna use that when Marvelous is just:>draw arbitrary shape in pattern window>spacebar to simulate>if it clips just drag out the clipped area while it's simulating>if it's too low res just change the particle distance (which works on-the-fly)while Blender is all:>make grid>open physics tab>assign cloth physics>take forever setting up the modifier stack correctly>wait for it to cache (or watch some 10fps nonsense in your viewport)>if it clips you have to edit the mesh and risk losing the realism of your sim>if it's too low res you have to restart and make your grid more subd
>>642759>Blender's cloth simulation is miles ahead.Prove it, faggot.
>>642683Is cloth on the top of 'Buff's modifier stack? Is it a cylinder, an extruded circle, or a tube? How did you even get this topology? I tried my best to get a similar result, but no matter what I tried, it just worked.
>>642772>spline rectangle>mark spline, make copy>Mark vertexes, -break>Garment maker modifier>align planes, 1 front 1 back>make seams on sides, not top and bottom>simulate local damped>Mark object, select border, convert to vertex, weld>Collaps all / convert to editable poly>cloth modifier, -silk preset>simulate, earth gravityi made 2 sides to "simulate" how a buff is made out of 2 sides, sewed together
>>642772>>642775What did you try?
>>642764>if it clips you have to edit the mesh and risk losing the realism of your simNigga, what do you think the masking modifier is for?
>>642683use marvelous designer lmao
>>642807>Just use a $500 program for one thing lmao
>>642840It's $30/month. 3ds Max costs about 10 times that.