Feature request: "Modify point" tool in Detail mode

Don’t get me wrong: I absolutely love Valentina for what it is capable of! And what I propose is no basic change, it is truely meant as addition to what is already possible - to separate basic construction (draw mode) and individual modification (detail mode).

The idea of having a value history accompanied with a freezed image is a good one. It could also be very helpful to be able to print measurements and increments as separate table according to the layout…

You know, i think i understand what do you mean. And i can say yes, it is possible. But not with the current workflow. Right now details are strictly based on draft. And this is your problem. Am i right? If yes this is huge amount of work, but still possible. And even interesting addition to current workflow.

I see it as “independent” application or mode. In this stage a detail based on previous look, but you free move points as you wish. The app works as you proposed save the offset from the originally calculated point position as a vector and apply this offset after recalculating the original point coordinates again later.

Like on the picture, base is inside, hidden. :grinning:

Yes, unfortunately. The improvement that did not expect because of my experience. I can imagine now your way of working. This is like new layer to current approach. More like a fork. We need more developer to make a solution.

Yes, yes, yes. Agree. Should be in our plans. When? Don’t know.:disappointed:

Yes! Exactly! I also thought about proposing a new, as you call it “independent” mode for this :), but didn’t dare to ask… Who knows, perhaps, in future…

Nice picture, btw. :joy:

The pattern format is text based. You can use git or mercurial and save snapshots. In future it would be nice to provide this feature out of box.

Please, create new issue ticket. Maybe time will come. It highly depend on how active will be the community. For now the Seam allowance tool redesign has more priority. But idea has perspective.

Ok, I’ll have to think about how to phrase a concrete feature request, but I’ll try. And I absolutely understand, that the redesign you mentioned has a much higher priority!

All that need is to leave the link to this discussion. Nothing more.:slight_smile:

Ok, that’s easy :joy:

edit: Done that.

1 Like

Thank you, i saw.:+1:

Shoulder width doesn’t have to be a “calculated measure”. Drafting methods supplied by various books are only for reference. You work with it a couple years then start adjusting parts of the calculations and rules and make your own version of it.

In my current draft shoulder width is just shoulder width. No derived measures or anything.

If you want to make an adjustable pattern, you just need to make sure you create points for which you can make those tiny adjustments.

Put in measurements Print Make a try-on/muslin Check adjustments Go back to your Valentina pattern and use your adjust points.

For example, When starting the side seams, at 0.01 cm I have another point which I can use to make an adjustment if I want to make a tiny movement.

That’s the power of valentina.

What you’re proposing is basically a made-to-measure system where you adjust points. The power of valentina is you can draft the bespoke way, then afterwards make adjustments but keep everything bespoke.

If i’d compare a mueller.sohn draft with its original amount of points to my own draft, mine has twice as much. I can move the dart, make the dart lie deeper in the back, have it go further up the back, further down the hip, lower on the upper back, higher on the hip.

I can adjust for balance, i.e. front/back balance, by just using a value which moves certain points within the pattern itself.

All from the measurement file.

One way solving the movable point is to create move point from Operations. It is a copy of a point and you could move it freely.

I think that it solves your basic problem with current dev version.

Yes, agree this is exactly how i see it. Really advanced professional adjust a method to own purposes. Like musician that not only play a music someone else created. Actually this is big topic. But i also want to say we should be flexible as possible if it fits our goal.

Combine two ways hard, but create a fork in workflow possible.

Yes, i also agree, it should help. But i see different problem here. Some users just know/use/like little bit different approach. And here, i think, more personal taste problem. I also don’t like change a way if it works for me. What we should not do it is to say users how they should make patterns. We will display how we can resolve a case, but take it or not will decide a user. Some will go and i am perfectly fine with it.

@tailored:

You wrote:

Put in measurements Print Make a try-on/muslin Check adjustments Go back to your Valentina pattern and use your adjust points.

I wrote:

  1. decide, which pattern making system (PMS) to use
  2. take individual measurements
  3. draw a basic shape based on the PMS
  4. print it, sew a test garment and see how it fits
  5. make adjustments to the printout as a result of no. 4: perhaps narrow the shoulders, lengthen body parts, slightly move darts for shaping etc.

Basically, I don’t really see much differents regarding our starting point. It is all about how the last step, the adjustments based on the muslin, can be incorporated into the pattern in Valentina.

From what I understand now:

You prefer a system where you integrate every single control feature into the pattern in draw mode.

I would rather like to leave my basic pattern draft as it is and make the necessary adjustments in a second step or (better) mode, where I can clearly differentiate between the basic draft and the changes I have to integrate after making a muslin and checking the adjustments.

It is simply a software workflow issue, nothing more. In theory, we both think of the same process and that’s fine!

But, in the end, I think my proposal as it has evolved beyond my first post in this thread now has some additional benefits. You can not only use it for fitting adjustments, you could also use it to perhaps create different style variations based on the same pattern draft not having to adjust a single measurement or increment value, but only by moving points around, creating new darts as you go just for design reasons: think of a basic women’s shirt, that you want to change into a waterfall shirt. You would have to massively change your basic draft if you want to integrate this, it might perhaps even not be possible at all to alter your pattern, instead you would have to redraw it from scratch. My idea (if we had a new “design” mode) could let you alter the detail parts the way you wish (cut, slice, rotate, insert new elements, delete parts, etc.) without having to mess with the basic pattern at all, because all those alterations would be applied to the basic pattern in a second step and this is the real beauty of it: creating design details based on a calculated, parametric pattern and not a more or less dumb CAD draft :wink:

This could also lead to the possibility to gather many different design variations inside a single *.val file based on the same body measurements and adjustments.

It would even improve your workflow the way that your highly customized and adjusted pattern is now open to free design work - I admit, this would even be better than my way of doing this :slight_smile:

I don’t see a point to fight which way is better. I see this idea interesting, but going beyond current workflow. But maybe we could determine separate small steps to make it real. Because now idea is really huge.

Design pieces is very interesting idea, but now we can achieve a lot with just modifying a draw. For now i will concentrate on this workflow, but will keep in mind your proposal. We need more flexibility.

Don’t get me wrong. I never meant to fight! I only wanted to clarify things…

I told this not for you, more abstract. :slight_smile: You got my attention and for now this is very good achievement. I like your idea.:+1:

I’ve been thinking a lot about this. This issue describes a ‘use case’ of this feature: