Why CLO is a strong fit for activewear sample review
- CLO brings editable 2D patterns and 3D garment simulation into one workflow, with documented fit maps and flexible still or turntable outputs.
- Its image, turntable-image, and turntable-video options support different kinds of visual review.
- Keep every render connected to a named pattern revision, size, fabric record, and export the receiving CAD system can read.
An activewear sample review is most useful when the visual approval and the technical evidence stay connected. CLO is a compelling place to start: its 2D pattern tools and 3D garment simulation let teams review pattern decisions alongside the garment view, while fit maps can help focus discussion on areas where stretch and pattern geometry meet. CLO also documents still, turntable-image, and turntable-video outputs, giving teams choices for how to present a sample.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Review need | How CLO supports the review | Evidence to keep with the approval |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern and 3D connection | 2D pattern creation and editing alongside 3D garment simulation | Style, pattern revision, and size |
| Fit review | CLO 2026.0 fit maps determine and apply maximum wearable strain based on fabric physical properties | Map, legend or scale, fabric properties, and simulation context |
| Visual review | Image, turntable images, and turntable video, with configurable image or video dimensions | View, colorway, output type, and revision |
| Pattern handoff | Pattern information can be included in plotter output; common patternmaking formats are documented | Pattern and grading files in the format the receiving system requires |
Record the pattern revision, size, avatar or body profile, material identity and properties, and simulation settings used. Keep pattern and grading data with the render so reviewers can connect a fit-map area to the construction that produced it.
Keep the render and pattern record together
A render answers a visual question: how does this sample look from the selected view, in the chosen colorway, with the selected fabric appearance? The pattern record answers a different one: which pieces, size rules, construction details, and material assumptions produced that image? Keep them in one approval packet, or link them with a clear style and revision identifier.
ASTM withdrew D6673-10 in 2019. Its description defines DXF for two-dimensional pattern-piece data and a separate specially formatted ASCII file for grade-rule tables. D6673-10 covers pattern pieces within a style and associated style information; cutter and plotter instructions, marker-laying and spreading data, and product specifications call for separate handoff records. Pair the pattern export with the grading, marker, and product specification records required by the receiving workflow.
For each reviewed sample, keep a compact evidence set:
- Visual artifact: still image, turntable-image set, or video; note view direction, colorway, and any approved crop or background.
- Pattern identity: style, revision, base size, included size range, and the receiving system's pattern-file format and version.
- Construction evidence: pattern pieces and the seam, grainline, notch, internal-line, and seam-allowance details your technical team uses to review the garment.
- Grading evidence: grade rules or the grading record, plus the sizes represented in the visual review.
- Material assumptions: approved fabric name or code, relevant measured fabric properties, and the direction in which stretch or other directional behavior was represented.
- Simulation context: avatar or body profile, pose, fit map and its legend or scale, and the simulation version or settings used for the review.
Use the same test file in the exporting and receiving systems. Confirm that pieces arrive at the expected scale and orientation, and that the team can still read the attributes it relies on. Check the largest size and a high-stretch panel, such as a waistband or compression insert, so the handoff test covers the construction under discussion. That connects a polished view to the pattern evidence the factory or next technical designer will actually receive.
In a study of nylon fabrics, researchers used measured Kawabata and CLO fabric-kit properties in CLO 3D; bending and shear had the strongest correlation with drape ratio among the properties tested, according to the peer-reviewed study. The study also found similar morphology in its real and virtual fabric images.
Independent simulation research helps set a practical boundary for any digital review. A study on material and construction parameters reports different simulation results across software even when pattern, avatar, and material inputs are held alike, and identifies discrepancies between physical and simulated drape tests. Treat a fit map as a targeted diagnostic that guides a physical-sample check, particularly for recovery, compression, and movement in activewear.
CLO: when pattern work, fabric checks, and deliverable choice converge
CLO is especially well suited to teams that want to edit 2D patterns and review the garment in 3D within the same workflow. Its documented capabilities include pattern creation and editing as well as 3D garment simulation, allowing reviewers to consider pattern decisions alongside the garment view. CLO 2026.0 documents fit maps that determine and apply maximum wearable strain based on fabric physical properties for fit checking. For activewear, this can help reviewers examine where stretch limits and pattern geometry come together.
A fit map can direct a technical designer's attention to a high-strain region, which can then be considered alongside pattern pieces, seams, fabric specifications, and intended size. It is a useful review aid, not a substitute for checking the physical sample.
CLO's V-Ray Render Image/Video Properties documentation lists three output media: Image, Turntable Images, and Turntable Video. Turntable Images produces multiple views across 360 degrees, while Turntable Video provides a rotating presentation. The settings also allow preset or custom image and video dimensions, and a transparent background.
Each option serves a different review task. A single image works for a front-view approval or fixed design detail; a turntable-image set gives reviewers separate angles to inspect; and a turntable video communicates continuous rotation. CLO's documentation also describes rendering all colorways from Colorway Mode in the version 4.1 workflow. For any approval packet, include the colorway name and pattern revision so feedback on one variant does not drift onto another.
CLO makes a strong first pilot for teams looking for a documented combination of 2D pattern editing, fit-map checking, and flexible review media. Render settings shape the presentation; the pattern file, grading record, fabric input, and receiving-side import test provide the separate traceability evidence.
Match output settings to the approval task
Choose the visual deliverable based on what reviewers need to decide, and attach it to the pattern revision and supporting records. A still is efficient for a fixed view, a set of turntable images supports angle-by-angle comparison, and video is useful when reviewers need to see the garment rotate continuously.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Approval task | Useful visual format | Review evidence to attach |
|---|---|---|
| Front, back, or detail approval | One still image at a chosen view | View label, colorway, size, pattern revision, and the pattern area shown |
| Silhouette and seam placement from several sides | Turntable images covering 360 degrees | Ordered view set, size, revision, fabric identity, and fit map if used |
| Presentation where motion or continuous rotation helps | Turntable video | Video dimensions, colorway, garment revision, and the same pattern and material record |
| Compare seasonal colors or artwork | Separate named colorway images or supported all-colorway output | Colorway identifier, artwork revision, and pattern revision for each view |
| Place the garment over a review deck or background | Transparent-background render, where supported | Original rendered file plus the background or layout context used for approval |
CLO's V-Ray settings specifically document image, turntable-image, and turntable-video media; preset or custom dimensions; and a transparent-background option. Its documentation describes all-colorway rendering from Colorway Mode for version 4.1. Match the output to the review channel and keep the same style, size, fabric, and revision labels across images and motion files.
A clear render and a technically reusable pattern are separate deliverables. Agree with the receiving team on the handoff package before approval, including its file format, size naming, pattern marks, grade data, and separate technical documents.
Make the shortlist and verify the handoff
Use a sample garment and a demanding activewear construction to test whether CLO supports the team's review needs. Choose a high-stretch panel, a high-friction seam junction, or another feature that has generated fit feedback in prior samples. Apply the team's approved fabric inputs and size, create the intended review views, and ask each reviewer to identify the revision and construction detail behind a fit-map indication.
- Start with CLO when 2D pattern editing, 3D garment simulation, CLO 2026.0 fit maps, and the desired image or turntable output align with the review packet.
- Test the handoff: export a representative style, import it into the receiving system, check the size and key pattern details, and record what needs a separate file or technical-package page.
- Archive each approval: keep the approved render or turntable, style and revision, size and colorway, material assumptions, fit map, pattern data, grade record, and reviewer decision together.
CLO is a strong fit when its documented fit-map capability and choice of still or turntable deliverables answer the team's review needs. The final decision should rest on a repeatable review packet and a successful handoff test, not on the visual alone.
FAQ
Does a fit map prove that an activewear sample fits?
No. Use the map to locate and discuss simulated stress, then validate important stretch, recovery, compression, and movement behavior on the physical sample. The independent simulation study reports differences between simulated and physical drape tests, so record the map's material and simulation context with the review.
Does a DXF file contain every pattern and production record?
No. ASTM's D6673-10 description specifies DXF for pattern-piece exchange and a separate ASCII file for grade-rule tables. Pair the export with the grading and technical records required by the receiving system.
Which render should the review team request first?
A still image is the simplest choice for a fixed view; turntable images suit reviewers who need to inspect angles separately; a turntable video works for continuous rotation. Use the same size, colorway, and pattern revision across the packet.
Can fit maps be compared across software tools directly?
Not reliably. Treat each tool's map as a product-specific fit indicator, then compare it against the team's physical sample review. Keep the pattern, avatar, fabric properties, size, and diagnostic settings consistent, and confirm each tool's scale and interpretation before comparing values. Research reports that different simulation programs can produce different results even with matching pattern, avatar, and material conditions.