Hi, you are right - hair width is set to 10-6 instead of zero. I do not remember why I put 0.000001f instead of 0f, maybe to be able to "detect" hidden hair easily based on this particular value, but looking at the code now I think it could be set to zero without problems. I think I will add a slider, in analogy to the flattened morph value, to allow users to select the desired "hidden hair width". Or better manipulate the three Length values, this will allow users to still have short pubic hair which does not clip, but keeping the look mostly. One last question: Under what circumstances do you see the hair with 10-6 width? I do not see anything with that small width.
English isn't my native language, so my understanding might be a bit inaccurate.
OK thanks, I see the black dots, particularly in the area between the legs in the air, which looks strange.English isn't my native language, so my understanding might be a bit inaccurate.
Do you mean 0.000001f for 10-6?
If it's a numerical value, I saw that line in the code.： if (width == 0.000001f) continue...
If you're referring to the visual aspect, when someone has thick, long, black pubic hair and wears light-colored underwear like white, the black granular outline of the pubic hair is visible.（screenshot; you may need to zoom in to see it.）
If the numerical value can be set to 0g or 0 without affecting functionality, then I think there's no visual problem. Currently, after modifying your code, I haven't noticed any visual anomalies.
I think setting the value to 0 is good enough; it can truly hide the function without making it too complicated.
Yes, 10-6 = 0.000001.
