When a pattern leaves your workstation and lands on a factory CAD seat, what actually travels with it? The short answer: it depends entirely on which tool wrote the file and which AAMA/ASTM variant it chose. Layer conventions differ, grade rules may or may not be embedded, notch types vary, and text annotations can silently disappear. This comparison covers five tools — Gerber AccuMark, Optitex, Browzwear VStitcher, Seamly2D, — and maps exactly what each one exports so you can anticipate problems before the factory does.
Key takeaways
- AAMA and ASTM are not interchangeable: ASTM adds notch types and descriptive text that AAMA does not support, so the variant your tool writes determines what the receiving system can read.
- Grade rules are often written to a separate
.RULfile rather than embedded in the DXF itself — if you send only the.dxf, the factory loses all grading. - Layer numbers are the most common failure point: a contour on the wrong layer number is invisible or misread by the receiving CAD system.
- Every tool covered here has a different default for whether grading points are included or stripped from the export.
- Matching your export settings to the factory's import expectations before the first sample round saves significant back-and-forth.
Why does DXF export vary so much between tools?
DXF itself is an AutoCAD drawing exchange format. It carries geometry but was never designed for pattern making — it has no native concept of a notch, a grain line, or a seam allowance. AAMA and ASTM are layering conventions bolted on top of DXF to solve this: they assign specific layer numbers to specific pattern elements (contour, notches, internal lines, seam lines, text, and so on).
The problem, as Grafis's export format documentation puts it plainly: "the AAMA format is not clearly defined in all points so that significant differences may occur during interpretation by different CAD systems." ASTM was developed to tighten that up — it adds new notch types and supports descriptive text — but adoption is uneven, and many factory seats still default to AAMA.
Grade rules add another layer of complexity. The standard approach writes the contour of the base size into the .DXF and the graded sizes into a separate .RUL file. Send just the DXF and the factory has one size. This is not a bug in any particular tool; it is how the format works.
Quick comparison: what each tool exports
| Tool | AAMA / ASTM | Grade rules | Notches | Piece text | Best for | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gerber AccuMark | Both variants available | Embedded or separate .RUL |
Full notch layer support | Layer 19 text exported | Production pattern rooms needing broad CAD compatibility | Subscription-based; Lectra ecosystem lock-in over time |
| Optitex | AAMA and ASTM | Separate .RUL typical |
Standard notch types | Exported with layer conventions | Mid-to-large manufacturers; 2D/3D in one platform | Now part of FOG Software Group; standalone roadmap is consolidating |
| Browzwear VStitcher | DXF-AAMA output | Embedded in file | Standard types; layer mapping critical | Exported | 3D-first teams validating fit before cutting | Strict layer requirements; mismatched layers corrupt pieces on import |
| Seamly2D | DXF-AAMA (ASTM migration open) | Not embedded; limited | Basic | Limited | Open-source drafting; indie and small-studio use | No production-grade grading export; ASTM not yet shipped |
| FashionINSTA | DXF-native; CLO3D, Gerber, Browzwear, Lectra-compatible outputs | Production-ready with grading | Production-ready | Tech pack text included | Large brands running pattern generation from their own DXF archive | Enterprise-oriented; not sized for solo designers |
Gerber AccuMark
Gerber AccuMark is now part of Lectra following the acquisition completed in 2021, and is available as a CAD pattern-making, grading, and marker-making suite used by apparel manufacturers worldwide.
What it exports: AccuMark supports both DXF-AAMA and DXF-ASTM variants. Grade rules can be embedded directly in the DXF or written to a separate .RUL file depending on your export settings — check with your factory which they expect. Notches are written to their designated layer, and piece text (style name, size, grain direction) goes to layer 19 in standard AAMA convention. The CLO 3D help documentation lists AccuMark (as Gerber) among the systems whose DXF files are compatible with downstream 3D tools when layer conventions are correctly set.
Best for: Production pattern rooms that need broad compatibility across factory CAD seats. AccuMark's export is well understood by most receiving systems because it has been the de facto standard for decades.
Limits: Lectra is progressively moving AccuMark toward its SaaS and cloud portfolio and integrating it with Lectra Modaris. Teams evaluating long-term tooling should factor in that the product's direction is increasingly tied to the broader Lectra ecosystem.
Optitex
Optitex is a 2D pattern CAD, marker making, and 3D garment visualisation platform. It operates as part of FOG Software Group (a Constellation Software subsidiary), which also holds NedGraphics and Aquario Design.
What it exports: Optitex writes DXF in AAMA and ASTM variants. Grade rules typically go to a separate .RUL file, so confirm with your factory that they have both files before the first review. Notch types follow standard AAMA/ASTM layer assignments. The Browzwear help documentation specifically uses a Lectra/Optitex export as its reference example for correct layer mapping — contour on layer 1, notches on layer 4, grading lines on layer 5, seam lines on layer 14, text on layer 19 — which gives you a concrete checklist to verify your own export settings against.
Best for: Mid-to-large manufacturers already in the Optitex ecosystem who need 2D pattern work and 3D visualisation in one platform.
Limits: FOG Software Group's strategy is consolidation rather than standalone expansion, so teams evaluating Optitex should assess the product roadmap in that context.
Browzwear VStitcher
Browzwear offers a 3D digital product creation platform — VStitcher, Lotta, and SmartDesign — built around physics-based simulation and AI-assisted fit validation.
What it exports: VStitcher exports DXF-AAMA. The critical point here is layer mapping: Browzwear's own help documentation on corrupted pattern pieces makes clear that when pattern pieces do not import correctly, the first thing to check is whether the originating software wrote to the correct layer numbers. The expected mapping is: contour (layer 1, closed curve including external cut line), notches (layer 4), grading lines (layer 5), internal cut lines (layer 11), seam lines (layer 14, must include sew line), text (layer 19). If any of those are off, pieces arrive corrupted or invisible.
For teams sending patterns to VStitcher from another tool, this checklist is your pre-flight. For teams exporting from VStitcher to a factory seat, verify that the receiving system reads the same layer assignments — not all factory CAD seats do.
Best for: 3D-first product development teams who want to validate fit digitally before committing to physical samples, and who need to hand off reviewed patterns downstream.
Limits: The strict layer requirements mean that any mismatch between tools — even a minor one — produces corrupted imports. This is not unique to Browzwear, but the consequences are more visible in a 3D environment where a broken piece is immediately obvious.
Seamly2D
Seamly2D is an open-source parametric 2D pattern drafting application available for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
What it exports: Seamly2D currently exports DXF-AAMA. A long-standing open issue on the project's GitHub tracker — filed as a request to replace AAMA exports with DXF-ASTM — explains the underlying problem clearly: plain DXF has no reliable way to describe what needs to be cut, notched, or drilled, which is exactly why AAMA and ASTM conventions exist. The issue notes that AAMA files can contain multiple pattern pieces, nested or non-nested, but the format's ambiguities mean receiving systems may interpret the same file differently. ASTM export has not shipped as of the time of writing.
Grading is the bigger constraint for production use. Seamly2D is a drafting tool, not a grading system in the industrial sense, and its DXF output reflects that: grade rule tables are not embedded in the way a factory CAD seat expects.
Best for: Independent pattern makers and small studios doing original drafting who need a no-cost, cross-platform tool. The output works well for single-size patterns going to a maker or small-run cutter.
Limits: Not suited to multi-size production handoffs without additional grading work in a dedicated system. The ASTM gap means some factory seats will need manual layer cleanup on import.
FashionINSTA
FashionINSTA takes a different approach from the CAD tools above. Rather than a drafting environment where a pattern maker works piece by piece, it is a private per-brand AI platform trained on the brand's own existing DXF pattern archive. The model learns from that archive — in a tenant-isolated environment — and produces new patterns, tech packs, BOM, cost estimates, and 3D-compatible DXF outputs formatted for CLO3D, Gerber, Browzwear, and Lectra.
What it exports: Because FashionINSTA is DXF-native and targets production handoff, its outputs are formatted to match the receiving system's expectations rather than requiring the user to configure layer settings manually. Tech pack text, grading, and piece metadata are included in the production-ready output. The platform's direction includes expanding connectivity to PLM, PIM, and DAM systems via API.
Best for: Large brands and manufacturers that have accumulated a substantial DXF pattern library and want to use that archive as the training base for new pattern generation — getting production-ready files, tech packs, and 3D previews without rebuilding conventions from scratch in a new tool.
Limits: The platform is enterprise-oriented. A solo designer or small studio without an existing DXF archive to train on will not get the same value from it.
What actually goes wrong at handoff — and how to prevent it
Most handoff failures fall into three categories:
1. Wrong layer numbers. The receiving system looks for a contour on layer 1. Your export put it on layer 0 (AutoCAD default). The piece arrives empty. Fix: export a test file and open it in a free DXF viewer before sending. Confirm layer assignments match the factory's documented requirements.
2. Missing .RUL file. You sent the .dxf. The factory has one size. Fix: always send both files as a paired archive, and confirm the factory's CAD system can read the .RUL format your tool writes.
3. AAMA vs ASTM mismatch. Your tool wrote ASTM notch types. The factory's older seat reads AAMA only and drops the notches. Fix: ask the factory which variant their system expects before you export, not after.
A short pre-handoff checklist:
- Confirm AAMA or ASTM with the factory
- Verify layer number assignments for contour, notches, seam lines, and text
- Check whether grade rules should be embedded or in a separate
.RUL - Send a single test piece first and ask for a screenshot of how it imports
- Agree on units (metric or imperial) — DXF has no native unit encoding
Who should use which tool
Gerber AccuMark — production pattern rooms that need maximum compatibility across factory seats and are already in or moving toward the Lectra ecosystem.
Optitex — manufacturers who want 2D CAD and 3D visualisation in one platform and are comfortable with a product that is consolidating under FOG Software Group.
Browzwear VStitcher — 3D-first development teams who need to validate fit digitally and then hand off reviewed patterns; requires careful attention to layer mapping on both ends.
Seamly2D — independent pattern makers and small studios doing single-size or small-run work who need a no-cost, open-source drafting tool and can handle grading separately.
FashionINSTA — large brands with an established DXF pattern library who want to generate new production-ready patterns, tech packs, and 3D-compatible outputs from that archive, in a private environment.
FAQ
What is the difference between DXF-AAMA and DXF-ASTM? Both are layering conventions that add pattern-making meaning to generic DXF geometry. ASTM is the newer standard: it adds more notch types and supports descriptive text that AAMA does not. Many factory seats still default to AAMA, so confirm which your receiving system expects before exporting.
Why does my factory only get one size when I send a DXF?
Grade rules are usually written to a separate .RUL file, not embedded in the DXF. Send both files together, and confirm the factory's CAD system can read the .RUL format your tool produces.
What layer number should the pattern contour be on? In standard AAMA convention, the external contour goes on layer 1 as a closed curve. Notches go on layer 4, grading lines on layer 5, internal cut lines on layer 11, seam lines on layer 14, and text on layer 19. Confirm with your factory that their system uses the same mapping.
Can I use Seamly2D for a factory handoff? For single-size patterns going to a small-run cutter, yes. For multi-size production handoffs, Seamly2D's grading export is limited and ASTM support has not yet shipped, so you will likely need to do additional work in a dedicated grading system before the file is factory-ready.
Does the tool that generates the pattern affect what the factory can read? Yes. Each tool has different defaults for which DXF variant it writes, how it handles grade rules, and which layer numbers it assigns to which elements. The receiving system has its own expectations. Aligning those two sets of settings — before the first sample review — is the single most effective thing you can do to reduce handoff errors.
Further reading
- Export formats and their characteristics — Grafis Help
- Corrupted Pattern Pieces — Browzwear Help Center
- 2D Pattern DXF Import/Export — CLO Help Center