Top ten -- Patternmaking software

Business/Legal
,
7

My background is design & development, software and product, at this stage I think the Valentina product is sufficiently different, and innovative, to say that I have confidence that the originator of the software has the right stuff to plow on in their chosen direction as they have been doing.

It’s very important to make sure that you don’t listen to the market too early, I have built enough products in the past and run many startups to say - trust in your individuality and ability to react quickly. Stay nimble and away from mainstream thinking - as it can be very homogenized. The goal is not to fit in with commercialization within the status quo, it’s to shift the thinking to blue waters of deeper potential. If you can walk away from a product development and say - you changed a sector, then you have done well. I see no reason why the Valentina project would not be able to achieve this in the short-term, and be very proud in doing so. It appears to be on track technically.

The Valentina product has enough commercial connectivity and relevance to not get too hung up on what others are doing. Some of the things I like about the Valentina project:

It is born from a real world experience and works to solve a problem - the backstory is delightful. The timing is perfect given that fashion CAD and parametric patterns have been stuck in old world thinking for decades - it’s a refreshing break from ‘others’. Keeping the sizing language central to the parametric tools hints at how CGI and digital avatar use will readily plug into this platform over other CAD packages that carry historic 2D baggage, I see this as potentially game changing. It’s open and the barrier to entry is minimal for those interested groups with a mix of disciplines, ranging from design to drafting to programming to CNC. The potential for 3D outputs tied to 2D is very real, as algorithms might also be tied to mesh objects and world of 3D garment creation. That the thinking is not tied too tightly into historic CAD workflows, and that the current workflow is uniquely building out their own space / beachhead - making ownership of that space, potentially a better investment longer term, certainly more exciting when combined with the potential for direct digital print onto fabrics and real-time garment customization.

:no_mouth:

1 Like
8

Hey @245oldsalty,

Thanks for the great review of Valentina!

Posting this article was to help everyone understand how Valentina is different, and BETTER, than the others. There is no intention to make Valentina like any other software, ever!

9

I read one book Steal Like an Artist and change my mind. :slight_smile:

10

I have gone through the list before and it is like comparing apples, oranges and peaches. Quite useless

One of the biggest difference of Valentina to the others is the freedom.

Most of the other programs give you something ready made and you need to find a way to tweak it to fit in your own needs.

Valentina gives plain canvas and freedom to do what you want. And you can do a lot. This is also the challenge for newbies, because you need to know quite a bit to create something useful.

2 Likes
11

I never tried to create Valentina for newbies. But if you know patternmaking it should be easy. And if it’s not this is our task to make it better in this case.

12

Yes, I know and that is reason why I like Valentina.

13

Ehhhhhhh. From reading your answers here it is obvious that your motives are selfish and most of you lack real world production experience. The reason most patternCAD suites look like they do is because it works. Sure, your ideas might be innovative and I like the tabula rasa approach, which go hand in hand with my method of designing functional garments out of a context. But to be efficiently used in a production environment (rather in a few happy home makers attic studio) Valentina needs to step up it’s game. I’m trying to add things I’d like to change but so far no luck. The obvious problem for a project like this is finding developers with trade experience.

Just one thing, make the default background colour black. Staring into vast fields of white for a day of work is excruciating for the eyes.

14

I like that you are straightforward. Most people never say me this. Probably you are right about all, but this mean nothing for me.

Look, you are definitely speak like guy from common patternCAD suites world. I heard this many times. And for such people i say only this “Go to your world, this project is not for you”. All you think based on your experience. This is good. But you can’t build plane if all you know is how to build a boat.

Same environment doesn’t mean only one approach to be able to leave there. See what nature is saying about this.

Funny, i don’t see nothing innovating in my way. Aged way that all ignore. Why, i have some thoughts, but of course who am i to have my opinion?

Is this all you see? It’s really sad. Because we are building tool that allow users make patterns from a scratch. The same approach as many other tools: LibreOffice, programming language and so on. But this doesn’t mean you can’t use templates, tweak patterns. Pattern base blocks database is matter of time.

?

I wish you luck.

I wouldn’t worry about this. We have such a person.:wink:

15

Again ehhh. As I’ve said I am a trained tailors cutter. If you think you will in some way get a better fit from using drafts from outdated book you are wrong on so many levels it’s sad. For a good fit (i.e. better than from trade sizes) measurements are an infinitesemal part. Using a draft gives you nothing more than a proportional draft. And the proportions suggested in a draft are reflection of the authours idea of fit that might have given him/her a decent ball park block at the time. Proportions of the ideal body have changed over the decades, so has culture. The whole concept of bespoke drafting cutting and fitting is based on experience. Most cutters go thru coatmaker apprenticeship and after a few years working as a coat maker you can do cutting apprenticeship, and that takes a few years. I’ve done it. Just putting measurements into a draft gets you nothing closer to a good fit. The only thing you are going to get are users who are dissapointed. And measurements aren’t that intresting. Think of a guy with a 44 inch chest. He might have a normal chest, he might have a huge chest and small back, he might have a big hunch back and no chest. Just a simple example. The idea of using tried old method would have been sound if you actually knew them. But you don’t. It’s pretty naive to reduce a craft that years of learning, cultivating an eye for posture, figure etc.

What should be easily done in a cadprogram should be *digitising (for most people it’s easier to learn to draft a good run of a seam with chalk or pencil) *grading *marker making

  • a good way to organise a data base of patterns
16

Maybe you should go and find you program some where or you can fork Valentina and make all your dreams come true. The world is open.

2 Likes
17

In the Internet you can be whatever you want.:slight_smile: I don’t care who you are. You have your opinions, i have my. Nothing will change here. So give up trying to prove something here. It pointless.

I think people should be able to use formulas, not just draw lines. Here is what all of this about. You did not understand what this project about.

What? Ideal body? All know that no such thing as idea body.

Speaking like a real CAD guy. :slight_smile: I will repeat myself. This project is not for you.

You can stay with most people where you are, i’ll go to place where i want to be. This is not a game, people should know patternmaking to be able make patterns. I don’t think that CAD system you like so much made for all judging by price they want. A lot people stay in 19th century, because people like you. They draw on paper or on screen with vector editors.

You mean dead drawings?

18

Ahhh. Look buddy, you fucking retard. You are the reason the open source community will never reach beyond the realm of the neck beards. You have no fucking clue about drafting or cutting or fitting. I tried to help this project somehow. But alas mr fucking know-nothing thinks he can make a revolution in the fashion world with an idiotic approach and with the stubborness of a 4 year old you refuse to learn something. Good luck with your formulas pal. Good fitting is in a fucking formula, yeah right.

You know what, I’ll fucking gladly pay up for prop. software instead of fucking about with this shit. If there’s anybody else in the development team who has any sense you are welcome to discuss. For now I will leave this shit as it is.

19

I love you man, you are super.:slight_smile:

Look buddy, you fucking retard. with the stubborness of a 4 year old

I see the same in you. I told you to leave kindly and you are still here trying to prove something.

:smiley:

People that really help do something useful.

You so afraid of this? Don’t worry it will not kill you. I am promise.

I don’t get it. Do you still want eat “this shit” or not?

Please, do us a favor. Buy.

20

[quote=“Stindue, post:10, topic:495”] I have gone through the list before and it is like comparing apples, oranges and peaches. Quite useless [/quote]. Agreed. The list helps to understand this very point.

People ask questions about Valentina with the assumption that their current system or their software is based on some “best practice” or “standard industry” way of doing things. This assumption makes it difficult to answer their questions, because it requires first conveying the information that there are many methods of patternmaking and that the method you use is determined by the measurement set you use, and that each patternmaking software has been built to implement a distinct way of patternmaking (resulting in apples v. oranges), then afterwards the information about Valentina makes more sense.

21

My experience of CAD/CAM for solid materials works well enough for me. So when I started sewing corsets of all things for my fist project, CAD didn’t work well for the way I create, it could be for my lack of knowledge. So I used spread sheets and Adobe Illustrator to create my patterns and it worked very well for my needs.

Then I started sewing backless cowl neck blouses. Which led to more ladies wanting these and making pattern adjustments. So I started evaluating pattern making software. Well, I don’t want another CAD software, I already have that. I looked at the “home” versions and they are all pre-packaged patterns that you have to modify. None of which really suited my style of creativity.

Some how I came across Valentina.

I agree from whats been said in write ups, Valentina isn’t like those other packages, IMO, it’s better for me in the way I create.

I use raw data in the form of measurements, take that date to create from scratch any pattern I choose! I’m not a pattern maker with any training and I’m learning as I go. But the way Valentina works, It’s teaching me skills at a faster rate, IMO.

Valentina has it’s place among the various software packages available for sewing. IMO, I’d put my money into this project because it’s a fantastic tool for they way I create and think!

Thank you to the creator of this software.

2 Likes
22

Wow! That’s wonderful feedback. It’s good to know.

1 Like
23

While it may be true (it surely is in my case), designing for mass production (or even bespoke, but assembly line based production) is not the only usecase for a pattern drafting program.

My usecase is drafting historical (in my case late victorian - early edwardian) clothing, where most of the community is made by either hobbists or one-person businesses who do everything from drafting to the actual clothing production themselves.

they work for the one usecase they are designed for, and that’s good. One could complain of a lack of Free Software alternatives, but that’s another matter.

For my usecase, as an example, a software that forced me to start from a modern block would be useless, while Valentina allows me to use period drafting methods and thus get the right shapes.

This is a niche, and one that is small (and in the case of businesses small scale) enough that it would never be served by conventional software houses, and I consider the existence of software such as Valentina that can cover such needs as a big advantage of Free Software.

It’s not there yet, and using the stable version in many cases I still have to do some pattern manipulation using pen and paper, but the direction is the right one to serve my needs pretty well.

From my point of view this is especially funny because if I have understood correctly the “outdated book” mentioned here is one that I would consider waaaay too modern for my needs.

In my experience with period clothing, using a drafting method from the past doesn’t change your chances to get a good fit (because some averages have changed, but people have always been made of many shapes), although of course it changes the general shape of the result (e.g. for the same person / measurements a method from the 1900s would give a pigeon breast shape that fits perfectly (above the right underwear), but would look quite out of place even in an outfit from the 1910s, not to speak of one of the 2010s.

Wouldn’t these guys have very different bust_arc_f and bust_arc_b measurements? (I think, the snippet of printout of the measurements svg I have nearby is the one I needed for female clothing)

1 Like
24

OJD : Actually good fitting is exactly a formula. You spent 7 years training in a form of cognitive doctrine and intuition (pattern familiarity). But don’t think it cannot be broken down into the smallest of artefacts, and process thinking so technologies can leverage the possible scaleable outputs. FACT > AI is coming, FACT robotic garment manufacture is here, and fashion CAD is now sitting behind the 8 ball of a number of technology platforms that are converging into low entry price points such that they are pervasive - the mobile phone and 3D scan capability will be out this year. And it can measure the human form accurately - and I don’t mean static posture - I mean moving realtime capture.

I have seen quite a few industries over the years shift. And I have experience coming from Aircraft compound shape, Formulae 1 racing carbon fibre pattern forming, and micro-surgical tool creation from 100% digital domains into manufactured product. ALL have gone 100% digital. And now we have our attention firmly on Fashion. Short story > I had a swag of artisan surgical tool makers tell me many years ago that their industry was happily cemented in hand crafting and that it was impossible for automation to impact on such hand making skills & trained people who work under microscopes. We took exactly 3 months to convert all that they knew about barriers to entry, and had trained for into a new approach of continued incremental digitization, that chipped away relentlessly at their domain of hand choreography and micro-shape sculpting. 18 months later we had replaced 80% of what generated their main product income. Radically impacting at speed on how they could adapt. Many sought retirement in the face of such rapid change. 5 years later many whom fought to compete were surplus to requirements as AI combined with laser scanning, reverse engineering of hand making and low cost laser-cutting of 3D into raw metal came of age, as industry accepted the category shift, pushing repeatable quality out as consumer demand picked up for new thinking as technologies collided in an age of increasing productivity. The product outputs are now the highest quality for pricepoint. And to illustrate how quick service innovation can impact we even challenged surgeons to sketch a new tool shape of what they wanted and 100 - 1000 - 10,000 copies would be created in under 48 hours from parametric AI design to manufacture to certification to AI visual inspection. Something inconceivable in terms of hand crafting. Which way did the market shift > it moved to quality and lower risk. The lone artisan took the hit. That is reality.

The opportunity is not in staying still, nor to thinking that training cannot be replicated by millions of processors in realtime and thousands of humans attached to opensource solving complex tasks towards new ways of customisation. That is naive and the musing of Luddites whom refuse a world of change is coming. Human shape can be measured in realtime including posture, fat, bone, muscle. That is a FACT - and where we are currently today. The cost to do this is small, and the technology it can be delivered too is hand-held and scale-able > the pervasive mobile phone. It does not require expertise and the process can be almost friction free - in both learning and expense.

Do you think that tailoring is safe from thinkers & technology looking to leverage the next wave of change and blue waters of market potential? No. It’s well on it’s way - and the opportunity is not in tailoring or craftsmanship. That is the domain of artisans and lifestyle choice. The opportunity is incremental growth of patterns (in parallel) that adapt to body shape in realtime. This is just around the corner in terms of realworld service offering. It will not stop artisans from being tailors, but it will impact on consumer expectations whoms thinking will shift and with it the jobs and those who service this new market space. No longer will it be acceptable for ‘off-the-rack’ Euro-sizing. That will slowly be replaced by tailored fit by AI and computational algorithms that farm out garment designs to a online market space of local makers - whom might well be artisans trained or untrained. The only qualification - a quality end result.

What you have happily missed from your perspective of artisan, and where I see the real opportunity as technologist, and where Valentina has cleverly placed their product. IS THE potential to leverage the online incremental improvement of the garment PATTERN. This is where you should be focused. The pattern itself - combined with authoring tools, combined with an army of online incremental change at the pattern level > is an unstoppable force. And it is that platform shift in concert with low price hand held computational devices with sensors that will govern what happens to your tailoring trade space in future. And note: we have our eye on that space, so expect relentless change.

We currently have AI that can make a garment fit to any shaped body, no measurement files are required as the system works on landmarks that change the dimensions in realtime on the 3D model. That means everything is dynamic, no user training required. So what you need to consider is - if we can get here, today, where does that leave you - tomorrow?