That’s a horrible idea.
1 Like
You could just name them Terrible, Horrible, and Obscene.
1 Like
This is probably what I was looking for.
This would be useful not only for 80-player instances, but also for 20- or 10-player ones.
3 Likes
Mayo, like mayonnaise? Would it be improper to ask for a link to this? Or maybe it’s a booth model and search will actually work? I think I’ve seen the name a few times in this thread
【オリジナル3Dモデル】 Mayo / まよ / ver.1.01 - Chocolate rice - BOOTH the Avatar in question from what I can tell that has 189,702 triangles
1 Like
Uncompressed limits are primarily what protect you here, and we’ve already talked about making those the next potential thing group or event runners can enable if this system works out well. No promises, but it’s being discussed.
I had overlooked that. If it allows for restrictions similar to those currently available in Settings, I would definitely look forward to it. It works very well.
I didn’t just say “they should increase poly limit” I also actually asked for restrictions on other forms of avatar stats - read the post.
I don’t understand why this topic has become so contentious.
“Avatar Performance Gated Group Instances” are essentially a dress code set for Group instances. It doesn’t prevent people from joining — it only means that their avatar may not be shown to others.
If that’s the case, the only people negatively affected are Very Poor users who want others to see their avatars, and that’s ultimately something they should solve themselves.
Preparing just one Medium-rank avatar isn’t impossible, right?
I understand the argument that free self-expression is important, but it’s only natural that there are limits to self-expression in public spaces or in other people’s private spaces.
Regarding the argument that “If I want to see my friends’ avatars, I’m the one taking on the performance cost, so it shouldn’t be restricted”, I can understand that perspective to some extent. However, that approach makes users less likely to feel the need to optimize their avatars.
If that happens, performers at events would end up performing for blocky impostors or fallback avatars.
Performers, just like you, want to enjoy performing while seeing beautiful avatars.
Of course, social interaction with friends is an important part of VRChat — but that can be done elsewhere.
I believe the needs of performers, who are the main focus of events, should take priority.
As for performance ranks, I don’t think it’s necessary to change the existing Very Poor requirements. However, I do support adding a rank that is even worse than Very Poor.
For example, if restrictions are applied in a 20-person instance, using the current Very Poor requirements would be excessive and would likely cause backlash within the community.
Using polygon count as an example, if 70,000 polygons are acceptable in an 80-person instance, people will naturally assume that in a 20-person instance, up to four times that amount — 280,000 polygons — should be acceptable (even if it’s not that simple).
Anyway, AI really is convenient. It makes it easy to communicate opinions like this.
Sorry if my English sounds weird.
3 Likes
Waiter! Waiter!
Make it an option for instances of any type please!!
2 Likes
Then simply:
- Don’t buy/use bases that are unoptimized.
- Encourage your favorite avatar creators to make more optimized bases.
- Find more optimized bases.
- Learn to use Blender.
- Buy PolyTool for Unity.
- Pay someone to optimize your avatar.
- Ask someone to teach you how to optimize.
- Find public avatars you like that could be used at events.
Many ways to solve this problem.
I appreciate that you think I’m bragging! I am very proud of the work I did and I love my avatar.
The point was to illustrate that I spent some of my free time over the years just casually enjoying blender and trying to get better, precisely so I can both express myself however I want and make optimized avatars.
I find the argument that people simultaneously want infinite diversity and expression of self but are not willing to pick up Blender very confusing. Blender is the way that you are able to express yourself to the highest capability. When you buy assets from other people, you aren’t unique. You’re buying assets that a bunch of other people are going to buy anyway.
Pretty much my entire Avatar besides the head, ears and tail is entirely custom. You will not find my hair, shirt, both pants, ear piercings and fur color anywhere else. Sure, my avatar might not be the highest fidelity. But my avatar is heavily customized and an extreme expression of my own self.
It didn’t even start out this way, but this Avatar eventually turned into my fursona and I see it as a critical part of my personality these days. It’s what allowed me to explore gender expression and who I really want to be.
I find it incredibly disrespectful that people are downplaying my avatar when there are people way more capable than me who make dozens of avatars in unity all the time who are afraid to pick up blender, yet continue to buy incredibly unoptimized bases and make incredibly unoptimized avatars.
It is not my fault that some people are apparently incapable of picking up a tool and trying to learn it.
5 Likes
Why does a basic anime girl need so many polygons? I feel like stuff like this is a result of VRC allowing unoptimized avatars with no limits go unpunished for so long. Too little too late…
1 Like
Idea following the group instance avatar restrictions, allow groups to set parameters based on permissions. So a certain permission rank can only have good or better while another can be set to no restrictions. In example this would allow venues like dance clubs to set general population to a optimized requirement while allowing the dancers full freedom.
In VR, the ability to get as close as 0m makes decimation difficult.
Wouldn’t it be more rational to use traditional LOD (Level of Detail) to reduce the difficulty of decimation, rather than requiring highly skilled retopology?
Why doesn’t VRChat offer this option?
Also, shaders that include tessellation passes should be flagged as Very Poor, since they increase the polygon count!
1 Like
I want to give a bit of Feedback as someone who makes a living from vrchat assets who cares about optimisation ,the thing is if you buy an avatar form booth your meant to combine the skinned mesh thy normaly only have 5 or 6 mats once you combine the skiined mesh , egirls are a diffrent story but with athlasing and cool shader tricks like UV discard you can normally get the avatar under 10 matirals, for for allot of avatars reducing thier performance cost in away that doesn’t effect the look of the avatar is super easy, poly count on the other hand is a much harder thing to reduce and i think that is at the heart of allot of this no one on booth can’t justafy reducing thier poly acounts to 70k becouse it will hurt the look of the avatar but if you tell me making the entire avatar 3 mat i can probably make it look almost same .
so why cant we increase of the poly limit while reducing another for exsample mat slots , 32 mat slots for a 70k model is way to many anyway and if you want to make the goal poor and not meduem for events than you need to reduce mat slots anyway.
a new mat every 2k polys seams a little crasy
1 Like
My autonomy is not worth social pressure. That’s not an equivalent exchange.
2 Likes
And honestly, the funniest part of this discussion for VRChat in general now.
My pc usually starts to struggle with 30+ avatars in public. I’ve also stress tested my GPU at handling some 20+ million tris, amd 6900xt. What I think is bottlenecking me is the animators eating too much cpu, even though I have an amd 9900x3d. Face tracking is becoming a commonly supported feature but the animator for it requires a lot of cpu even when not used. I don’t think the ranking should be targeting 80 avatars loaded when their very poor. Trying to load 80 medium ranked avatars makes more sense to me, and I wonder how many we could load if they were all ranked good. I really think we need more than just the 5 ranks as more granularity gives more control. But that’s just my 2 cents and I know most people don’t have as good a pc as mine. Sorry, that turned into more of a rant than I expected.
Since I guess it’s relevant to this discussion: Has anyone found a way to do UV discard without opening blender? Apparently you can use the Mesh API in Unity to interact with UVs, which should make it possible to offset UVs based on materials. So there could be a script or addition to existing scripts (even VRCFury) where it could set up UV tile discard as part of combining meshes/materials.
I have personally wanted to use UV tile discard more, I just never got around to even setting up a Blender script to automate that process, since it is quite tedious.
If you want people to respect your “autonomy”, then you should also respect the spaces that you are choosing to attend. Your preferences don’t outweigh the collective experience of being in a group instance that enforces avatar ranks.
You choosing to be in a Very Poor avatar is typically ruining the experience for everyone else in a group event context.
2 Likes
I don’t wanna bypass the limit for other people, nonono that’s valid and shouldn’t be possible. I want to see other people’s avatars on my machine. The only experience that can ruin is my own, and I should have the right to dictate what an acceptable FPS is on my machine. If I prioritize people’s avatars over graphics I can set my shield to NONE and lower my MSAA level.
Even when I was a Quest 1 standalone user back in the day, even when I was an Air Link player on my Ryzen 3 + GTX 1050 + 1000mhz RAM PC I’d rather lag and crash than not see people.
Yes I think the perf limit should not be disabled for you because the person wearing the avatar turned off the feature. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about my freedom to decide what avatars do/don’t load on my machine, which I pay for, own and control. In a wold of dwindling consumer control nowadays I feel justified fighting tooth and nail for the sanctity of what little free spaces we still have.
3 Likes