I believe the topic of PerformanceRank restrictions is a very sensitive one. People come to this world for a variety of reasons, and self-expression is a key part of that.
To get straight to the point, honestly, the PerformanceRank metric isn’t very useful on PCs at the moment.
(VRAM and GPU performance have improved significantly since it was first introduced.)
With that in mind, here’s an idea: instead of relying solely on PerformanceRank, could we implement restrictions based on an avatar’s download size or uncompressed size?
(Similar to the options in the “Avatar” menu in the settings screen)
The key point is that “we users don’t want to restrict avatars based on a broad category like ‘Very Poor’; rather, we want to restrict avatars with extreme uncompressed sizes or polygon counts.”
I should have mentioned this at the beginning, but I am Japanese.
At least for us Japanese users, we purchase most of our avatars from Booth.
However, under current standards, most of these are rated “VeryPoor,” and adding even a few accessories can push the polygon count or material count into the “VeryPoor” range. In this situation, the ones suffering the most aren’t heavy users like me, but light users who recently got a PC and just started playing VRChat.
As an alternative approach, some have suggested that “we should reevaluate the PerformanceRank itself, including the ‘VeryPoor’ category” or “we should create metrics that measure rendering costs more specifically,” but that wouldn’t be a simple task either.
Compared to factors like polygon count and material count, download size and uncompressed size directly impact internet connection speed and VRAM capacity.
This is a key difference from other PerformanceRank elements.
Furthermore, since download size and uncompressed size are also used as metrics within PerformanceRank limits, if these limits can be implemented, they can indirectly serve as PerformanceRank limits as well.