I wanted to share a project I’ve been working on and get your feedback. I’ve developed a parametric body modeling tool that uses just a few basic inputs—like age, height, and weight—to generate a full set of body measurements along with a 3D model. You can also adjust individual values (like chest size), and the system will intelligently update the other, unprovided measurements to stay consistent.
The tool outputs a SeamlyMe-compatible measurement file. Right now, it generates custom measurement names, but I’m planning to map everything to SeamlyMe’s official measurement names.
As many of you know, Seamly’s measurement list is quite extensive. I aim to eventually support all of them, but for now, I’d like to prioritize based on what users need most.
So, my question to the community is:
Which SeamlyMe measurements do you typically use or consider essential when drafting patterns?
Someone also suggested referencing the Joseph-Armstrong patternmaking system—do you think that’s a good idea?
It’s awfully difficult to say which measurements should be included as a matter of course because they’re different for men, women and children - women having the most measurement areas.
I do like HJA, so it is a good place to start. If you want to start out with less, then Aldrich doesn’t use as many measurement areas. Personally, I like to use the width circ’s front and back arcs and the angle of the shoulder slope.
It’s all really a matter of personal preference and if you want to make everyone happy, you’ll need to use all of the areas in the SeamlyMe diagrams.
Not sure what you mean? There already exists all the “known measurements” (which are translatable unlike customs) … you just need to select the known measurements that M&S uses for your measurement file. There’s nothing to add to add to SeamlyMe as you would be hard pressed to find any M&S required measurement that doesn’t already exist. The known measurements cover all the systems listed in the PMS prefs, and then some. BTW the Pattern making system prefs does nothing. It’s simply a list of systems. I assume the idea was that a user would select a PMS and it would automatically create a measurement file with the needed known measurement for that system. To me it’s just a useless confusing unfinished feature that serves no purpose.
If you wanted you could create an M&S template of all the needed M&S measurements from the known list. There’s already a template in the samples folder for all the knowns and the Aldrich womens:
@Grace – I’ll definitely look more closely at both Joseph-Armstrong and Aldrich as solid starting points. Including shoulder slope and arcs is the kind of refinement I’ve been aiming for, so I appreciate the suggestion.
Based on your responses so far, I’d like to share the current version of the body modeling tool, but it seems I am not able to post any links. It is called BodyDouble and lives at seamscape dot com /bodydbl
(Export to SeamlyMe is only available on desktop — it’s not included on mobile since measurement export doesn’t make sense there.)
You can export a SeamlyMe-compatible file using the Export As → SeamlyMe option. It currently uses custom measurement names, and I haven’t done the mapping to SeamlyMe’s known measurements yet — I’m still deciding which ones to prioritize. The longer-term goal is to support the full set, but that will take some time. That’s why I really appreciate your input on which measurements matter most to users in practice.
Just to be transparent: while the tool is free to use, it is part of a broader textile software suite I’m building (which includes pattern-making and cutting-room tools). That said, it’s not meant to compete with Seamly — it’s far less advanced — but rather to explore complementary ideas that could help users of both platforms.
If it’s not appropriate to post external links here, I completely understand — moderators are welcome to remove it. I just thought some of you might find it useful, especially for generating a quick starting set of measurements.
I’m happy to keep improving it based on your feedback and what’s most useful for this community.
Thank you very much for your explanation. We’re rather strict with new users posting links and try our best to keep the Seamly forum a safe place for everyone who uses it.
I’ve had a look at your model and entered my measurements. It’s pretty cool in populating the measuring areas based on gender, age, height, weight so I only basically tweaked the areas to real measurements.
The measurement file showed an error when I tried to open it because it says “inches” and not “inch” when using the imperial measurements.
The last problem that I had is that all measurements are entered as Custom and not using the diagram references that are Known.
Yes, connecting it to the known measurements is straightforward, but not yet implemented — I just wanted to get a better idea of which ones users would like to prioritize first. However, I will try to fix the existing ones right away, as “known measurements”, and can add additional measurements in the future.
And thanks for pointing out the issue with inches! That’s now fixed and should be working properly.
.vit belongs to Valentina and .smis is Seamly which no longer supports Valentina, since the 2 have been developed in completely different directions.
You’ll find a complete diagram of all of the measurement areas with their codes on the wiki (link at the top of this page). The diagrams will give you an indication of how the measurements are obtained.
We try to support everyone who is trying to support Seamly for the good of our users. At the moment, I’m willing to get acquainted
I’m sorry, I’ve indeed got myself all mixed up. Since I always use the same M&S individual measurement file that I created a while back, I don’t use SeamlyMe a lot, my memory failed me.
I indeed got confused by the fact that there is a “patternmaking system” pref & that we already discussed about the M&S abbreviations on the forum.
That’s indeed the closest solution to what I had in mind
If it’s truly connected to nothing in the backend, what about removing it from the software ? I think it could confuse new users by making them think that Seamly already “knows” how to draft some patterns (maybe it will in the future?).
I wish I had been involved with the app early on and I would have suggested that there should just be an ME template for each PMS, rather setting a PMS pref. The PMS pref is just odd way to create a messurment file - even if it did function. Again IMO as it is it’s just annoying - epecially since all the systems, authors, and books have to be translated - some of which were causing issues when I was using Google to translate a whole doc.
That being said… @Grace brought up the point that the M&S system uses all those abbreviations for measurements, which would take a lot of work to add another VMeasurment class member to include another column in SeamlyMe, the Variables table, the FX Editor, bumping the schemas, and whatever else I’m not thinking of.
IMO… yes it should be removed. I was even confused by it when I first used rhe app. And like I said it’s just more to translate. I would take all the info and put it on the Wiki as reference, becasue that’s all it is. It’s just a list of PMS books.
Even if it did something, it should be a choice you select when you create a new measurement file… but then the standard way most apps work is you load an empty template.
This is what was desired. Then it turned into what it is. The patternmaking system preference was supposed to a preference in SeamlyMe (not Seamly2D) so that when we create a new client’s measurement file, it pre-selects the measurements for a particular patternmaking system (for students and followers of particular patternmaking systems) or if would select your own custom measurement template.
The point was to avoid having to select the list of the measurements we want every single time we get a new client. It was supposed to save time, and support learning.
Yes… and that’s why you use a template. You can take a base template, add your own customs, and save as a new template. The PMS “pref” thing would not accomplish this. We just need someone to take all those PMS systems and create a template.
Yes it was meant to be as simple as that, BECAUSE we wanted about 100+ measurement templates, one for each patternmaking system, to make it easy to learn patternmaking from the books, and for experienced patternmakers to use the system they learned from or to create their own. Selecting my preferred template from 100+ templates each time? Oof.
The way forward was this workflow:
Click on New →
If a measurement template has been selected in SeamlyME preferences then a new file is created based on the template, otherwise create a new file following the default method.
Sorry for the late reply — I wasn’t able to send more messages yesterday (I was blocked as a newcomer).
Sounds good!
All of the measurements are now mapped to SeamlyMe’s known measurements — except for backLength. I think it should be replaced with something more standard or widely used, but I’m not sure yet what would be the best fit. I’ll check HJA and Aldrich for guidance.
Not really… many of the known measurements use other known measurements in the formula field. For example:
That actually seems like a good approach — it helps keep raw measurements to a minimum.
I also agree with the other comments that SeamlyMe’s pattern system selection should ideally filter the relevant measurements somehow.
Not sure what you mean by “it should be replaced” ?
H19. neck_back_to_waist_b - From Neck Back down to Waist Back. Often referred to as nape to waist. The name is irrelevant… what matters is the diagram code # and the description of where the measurement is taken.
