Use virtual drape to shortlist; use physical evidence to approve.
- Compare candidates against the same garment intent and simulation setup.
- Record material properties, model source, and settings with each result.
- Advance fabrics whose drape suits the design and whose specification evidence is complete.
- Confirm required properties on physical material before final supplier approval.
- For eligible companies, CLO’s Material Digitization Service publishes a physical-to-digital drape validation process.
Use virtual fabric drape to compare supplier fabrics and shortlist those whose simulated fall suits the intended garment. Order physical swatches or garment samples to confirm the material properties and appearance required by the product specification. Keep the digital comparison and physical confirmation as distinct evidence in the sourcing decision.
1. Use virtual drape to decide which fabrics move forward
When several fabrics seem plausible, CLO’s virtual drape can help the team see how each one falls and forms folds in the intended style. That early comparison can flag materials whose appearance seems at odds with the design and help focus physical sample requests on promising candidates. Start by defining the garment and visual requirements; that way, the team judges each simulation against the actual brief, not just whether it looks appealing.
Physical drape testing and virtual simulation are useful at different points in the decision. ISO 9073-9:2008 specifies a method for determining fabric drape coefficient for nonwoven, woven, and knitted fabrics. Use that result as one part of the supplier specification, alongside any other material properties the product requires.
CLO simulations can bring fabric data into garment development before a team commits to sewn samples. An AIP Conference Proceedings paper on digital drape evaluation describes using fabric-property values to predict drape coefficient before fabric production, which may support earlier fabric selection. For sourcing teams, the sensible role for simulation is to screen and prioritize candidates; physical tests then check the selected material against the specification and intended garment.
A study of nylon fabrics measured real-fabric properties and used CLO fabric-kit results to create virtual fabrics in CLO. The researchers reported similar morphology in their comparison of real and virtual fabric images. They also found that fabrics with similar drape ratios could produce different virtual silhouettes when their weights differed. That makes drape a useful way to ask, “Does this fall suit the design?” while weight and other specified properties help answer, “Does this material meet the product brief?”
2. Gather comparable supplier fabric information
Before running a CLO comparison, create the same intake record for every candidate. A fabric name by itself does not show whether digital materials reflect comparable physical properties or were prepared in the same way. Capture these details for each option:
- Supplier and material identity: supplier, fabric name or code, composition supplied by the vendor, lot or colorway, and swatch reference.
- Physical measurements: weight per unit area, thickness, bending stiffness, tensile or stretch behavior, and shear properties where they matter to the style. Record the units, fabric direction, measurement method, and test report with each value.
- Surface and use details: face and reverse, intended contact surface, finish, and any product-specific property that affects the decision, such as friction or tactile feel.
- Digital material record: file or library name, source, property values, and the person or service that created or digitized it.
- Comparison setup: garment pattern or drape form, avatar or display, simulation settings, material orientation, and image views used to compare the candidates.
- Physical sample conditions: swatch identity and any conditioning or test conditions reported by the supplier or lab.
A critical review of fabric-property measurement for virtual simulation identifies bending, shear, tensile behavior, and friction as key properties for virtual fabric and garment simulation. It also explains that measurement methods can capture different behavior: cantilever bending is close to fabric hang or drape, while other methods measure a pure bending curve.
The review notes that shear may be measured through bias-direction extension or through shear deformation, and that fabric friction changes with the fabric side, warp or weft direction, and the surface it rubs against. Record those details when garment fit, layering, or skin contact makes them relevant. Keep the intake form focused on the product: a lightweight blouse and a structured outer layer may need different properties emphasized.
Make the digital comparison fair by using the same garment or drape setup and consistent simulation inputs for every candidate. If one model is based on measured fabric data and another on a generic preset, label the difference. That helps the team distinguish a genuine material difference from one caused by data quality or setup.
3. Turn virtual results into a shortlist
A consistent review makes it easier to explain why a fabric moved forward and what still needs checking:
- Define the use case. Note the garment, design intent, and visual qualities the material needs to support, such as a crisp fold, a fluid silhouette, or a close fit through a particular panel.
- Select candidates with useful input data. Prioritize supplier fabrics with measured properties or a digital material record that names its source. Flag estimates and generic presets as preliminary, so the team knows when physical measurement may help resolve a decision.
- Keep the setup consistent. Use the same pattern or drape form, viewing conditions, and simulation settings for each candidate. Compare the same areas and angles throughout.
- Describe what the simulation shows. Record how the fabric drapes, folds, and shapes the silhouette in relation to the design brief. Note the measurements that may help explain what the team sees, particularly weight, bending, and shear.
- Choose a next step. Mark each fabric “advance to physical check,” “request better material data,” or “close for this style.” Move forward with candidates whose simulated appearance and available evidence fit the brief; ask for better data when the current inputs leave an important question open.
- Request physical evidence for shortlisted fabrics. Order swatches or garment samples to check the properties and appearance required by the specification.
A comparison of physical and virtual drape using commercial garment software focused its first phase on developing a virtual test setup compatible with the Cusick drape tester, with adjustments to variables such as cylinder height and ring diameters. Its later phases examined digitized physical-property inputs from standard testing equipment or a simplified fabric kit, and the effect of particle distance on virtualized fabric.
A separate study comparing actually and virtually draped fabrics selected five fabrics, used a Cusick drape meter for physical drape, and compared image-based measures from real and simulated drapes. It found that the software did not reflect drape area well, while simulated fold counts corresponded more closely to the physical results; only one simulation differed by two nodes. For a shortlist, compare the visible spread and fold pattern as separate criteria rather than combining them into one match score.
4. Confirm the required properties on physical material
Let the product specification and supplier agreement guide the physical confirmation plan. ISO 9073-9:2008 specifies a method for determining drape coefficient; confirm every other product requirement through its corresponding test or sample review.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Decision question | Evidence for the shortlist | Physical confirmation before approval |
|---|---|---|
| Does the fabric fall and form folds as the design needs? | Compare drape and silhouette in the same virtual garment or test setup. | Measure physical drape using the agreed method, and review the fabric or garment sample against the design. |
| Does the material have the required weight and thickness? | Record supplier data and compare its effect on the virtual silhouette. | Confirm the specified weight and thickness on the identified physical lot using the team’s required method. |
| Does the fabric bend, stretch, and shear as the garment requires? | Compare digital properties and note fabric direction and test method. | Confirm the property values required by the tech specification through supplier or lab test evidence. |
| Will the material work for its surface contact and intended use? | Use material records and the simulation to identify likely candidates. | Confirm required surface, tactile, or performance properties on physical fabric under the relevant product specification. |
| Does the garment look and behave as intended in a sewn sample? | Use virtual garment review to choose the best options to sample. | Review the physical sample for the product decisions that depend on real material and construction. |
A 2023 fabric-classification study in Fashion and Textiles describes objective drapability measurement through numerical values and subjective evaluation through expert sensory review. That combination fits product approval: measured results support repeatable checks, while a sample review helps the team judge the qualities the specification assigns to touch or appearance.
5. Use CLO’s MDS when a validated digital fabric is useful
For eligible apparel companies, CLO’s Material Digitization Service (MDS) provides a documented way to validate a digital fabric against its physical counterpart. In CLO’s MDS Drape Test, physical and digital fabrics are cut to the same 50 × 50 cm size and placed on matching physical and virtual cylinders. The test compares drape height and flare count, giving teams clear criteria for evaluating a digital material.
CLO states that a drape-height difference of 1 cm or less meets the MDS validation criterion. When the physical sample has fewer than eight flares, the physical and digital counts must match; at eight flares or more, they may differ by no more than one. CLO also says it manually adjusts specific parameters when the criteria are not met.
These height and flare thresholds apply to CLO’s MDS Drape Test; the buyer’s product specification still governs final fabric approval. MDS is available to companies that qualify for CLO Business; one-person companies are not eligible for that business service.
6. Record the decision before ordering samples
Before asking a supplier for a sample, save a concise decision record for each fabric that advances. It gives technical, sourcing, and product teams a shared rationale for the request and a clear view of what still needs approval. CLO-SET can complement this process: its 3D asset management and communication tools let teams organize 3D assets and keep comments and versions with the design.
- Identity: supplier, fabric code, lot or colorway, composition, and swatch reference.
- Digital evidence: model name or file, material data source, property values, and digitization method.
- Comparison: garment or test setup, simulation settings, views reviewed, and date or version of the comparison.
- Decision: which design requirement the fabric appears to meet and why it advances.
- Open physical checks: the specified test, sample review, or supplier evidence required before approval.
- Ownership and outcome: person responsible for the physical confirmation, supplier response, result, and final approval status.
A clear record also makes later material changes easier to assess. If a supplier changes a finish, lot, construction, or another detail covered by the specification, the team can see which comparisons and physical checks may need to be revisited. The result is a straightforward path from CLO-based virtual screening, to physical verification, to approval against the documented product specification.