❓ Why create yet another 3D editor
Background
For a long time I’ve been making fursuits/costumes, and I mostly use a 3D based workflow, sculpting my designs in various 3D programs, and then using 3D printers to make molds to cast. The only part of the process I was never able to sort out software was patterning, so I stuck with tapping my models to make patterns. But in the past few years, I’ve found tapping to be really troublesome for my hands, enough so it that became something I dreaded.
If you’ve ever used a tape based pattern methodology (or made a duct tape dummy) you know that it can be pretty tedious. First have have a model to tape, then tape the model, mark up the tape and then cut the patterns out.
In some cases you may not even have a physical model to work with, and making one might only be required to produce the patterns.
A lot of times I’ve printed single use 3D models, a model that exist only for patterning, never to be used again.
On top of that, if you’re like me, then I mess up a pattern or loose one and then I’m stuck trying to reverse engineer the pattern you need.
The whole process is tedious, slow, and error prone.
On top of that I tend to reuse my models for multiple projects, so I wind up having to re-tape the model multiple times, just to make different patterns.
I built Pandafold because I wanted a quick and easy workflow to get from 3D prints that patterns that I could use to create things. Not only will it help my hands but also enables a wholly digital workflow.
Why Pandafold?
We live in the age of 3D printing, why isn’t it easier to generate patterns from 3D models?
It seems that most 3D editors are designed for making games or 3D models not for patterning them.
Sure they have a UV workflow but if you try to use it to make sewing patterns you’ll quickly become frustrated.
It turns out a process optimized for producing assets for video games isn’t good at producing assets for sewing or wrapping.
There is a lot of stuff that’s missing:
- An easy way layout patterns to paper or for projection
- An easy way to print patterns and insure they are scaled correctly
- Management pattern IDs, so you know what’s what and how it fits together
- Fabric orientation/grain-line support
- Build sheet / Assembly guide
- Fabric based materials catalog
- Seam alignment guides
- Seam allowances
- …
And lastly you’re constrained to using the model topology.
It’s a fundamentally different workflow and problem space.
There are distinct parts of the workflow of patterning a 3D model that falls outside the scope of common 3D editors. For example, laying out patterns on different fabrics, generating seam alignment marks, orienting patterns, cutting darts, managing materials (fabrics), accounting for fabric stretch, printing patterns or projecting patterns, etc..
While Blender is utterly amazing, using it’s UV workflow for making patterns isn’t particularly efficient, it’s just not the right tool. Sure you can do it, but did you really save any time over tapping?
Before I created Pandafold I tried a-lot of the popular 3D editors, and some specialized tools which I hoped could solve this problem for me. I just wanted to make costumes, not fight with patterning!
These solutions were either insufficient, too limited, too difficult to use, or far too costly for hobbyist and small businesses.
Nothing really fit the bill.
But as I continued to push my 3D workflow the gap for patterning became more and more apparent.
Without a digital patterning solution I couldn’t get to laser cutting fabric,optimize my embroidery workflow, easily map dye sublimated designs to fabric, or avoid printing needless models. It felt like an obvious tool was missing.
So … one step at a time I pushed on a solution for 3D patterning until I got here. This is the fourth attempt at writing software to do digital patterning of 3D assets.
Because I’ve lived this problem I think I’m in the right place to offer a solution.
Why not make it a plugin to an existing 3D editor?
Well I tried, I really tried.
I’ve spent about 3 months trying to make a plugin for 3DCoat, and then Blender and neither exposed enough of their API to provide the functionality that I needed.
Lastly making it a plugin to existing editors has some downsides, it means that I couldn’t really optimize the workflow to focus on pattern making. It also raises the barrier to entry, as new users have to learn a potentially complex 3D editor, just to use a small bit of it’s capabilities exposed as a plugin.
Why should someone who is comfortable working in Nomad Sculpt take on the large investment to learn Blender?
I’m hoping that Pandafold being focused on a single task will make it less cluttered and easier to learn for a plethora of users.
Why the name Pandafold
It’s a play on panda and the word manifold. A manifold is a geometric shape which has certain properties. And well… a panda is an animal - and I like making animal costumes.
Will Pandafold be free?
When I initially set out to solve this problem I really wanted to make a free version of it, but I’ve now spent almost a year of my life working full time to solve this problem, a year of no income.
I’ve been living off my savings to make this happen, and soon I’ll have to decide to either stop working on Pandafold or go seek some other source of income.
We’re privileged to live in a world of free software, but sometimes a solution doesn’t come about unless someone who understands the problem can afford to focus a significant amount of time on the solution.
There are commercial solutions which solve this problem, but the cost is pretty high. I’m hoping that with Pandafold I can offer a solution which is more within reach of hobbyist and small businesses, and awesome enough that it’s worth supporting it’s development.
If you want a free patterning solution I’d recommend checking out plushify.
