ASTM sizing expanded
I am wondering if there are other avatar sizes to purchase that cover all of the ASTM sizes.
It is useful that the program comes with Regular sizing, but I would like to have sizes in the full short and tall size range as well as the Regular.
I have all of that information as a hard copy purchased from ASTM directly, but it doesn't seem to transfer that well to the Avatar Editor. If you enter sizing to far beyond the Regular sizes the Avatars get wonky.
Does anyone know if that is available or if Clo plans to make that available in the future. It would be very useful if so.
-
Currently we only offer US ASTM sizing. But that does include Curvy, Straight, Petite, and Plus for women's avatars. If you are looking to adjust the avatar it can be best to start with the ASTM size that is closest to your desired result and then edit from there. We also have an Avatar Editing Guide that can be downloaded HERE which has lots of tips on the best way to edit avatars sized
0 -
Thank you, I should have specified that I am looking at the Men's sizing. I know that the Women's Avatars come with Curvy, etc. Which is great, and most likely all that would be needed.
I am specifically wondering about Men's sizing in Short and Tall. I know there is one size available in Tall already, a 38.
0 -
Of course! For Men's currently those are the only options. But if you look at the guide it does give a good order of operations for editing the avatars so they do not become to wonky.
We do hope to make editing the avatars more seamless in future release of CLO. Hopefully the guide can help you until then
May I ask what size avatar are you looking to create?
0 -
Thanks so much.
I am trying to create xs, s, m, L, and XL sizes based on National Health Statistics reports for mean values. Which is the reference point my collaborators are working from. I do seem to be having better luck with the sizing than I was before. So, thank you.
Long term I would love to have all of the Standard Men's sizes from the US ASTM Chart, Short to Tall.
0 -
Mean values will not work, as humans don't fit into 'mean' as tailored body shape is maybe a bit more complex than assuming an average will strike a tailored pattern size that sits in the middle of a range of measures. It's statistical nonsense to approach it from this angle. That is typical of ergonomics where equipment (eg: arm reach and body heights and knob positions sit within loose means to ensure the highest % of population (assuming all of the population the mean stats are based on - can best reach a knob). When you get into clothing 'Fit' and pattern blocks the 'mean' girth relative to an end market demographic that captures your buyers likely range of body shape (silhouette and shape is more important) because 'mean' pattern shapes actually reduce tailored fit down to BIG variances according to general population that health stat was based on. Almost gobbly-gook from a anthropocentric basis of knowing what slice your end market is. To say a mean size shirt will fit 50% of waists, hips, and chest further complicates the variance - what that actually indicates is you will end up with a very wide fit profile, that is maybe very generous with ease and length in the blocks = bad fit blocks that get cemented into some out of context assumption 'mean' values are useful in this context, they are not. A better way to get the metrics is to create a 'market' customer profile and then use those statistics to gauge fit. Using readily available general market health and anthropometric databases may simply be a red herring. Get to know your end customers profile range and then create a synthetic anthropometric database and then use that - a much better process. eg: For tailored and fitted suits you would never use the 'mean' anthropometric values it's nonsense in the context of any 'fitted suit'.
0
评论