Incremental Triangle Limit for Performance Rankings
Godfall
Currently, you can have an avatar rated as “Good” at 70,000 polygons, but adding even a single triangle beyond that will instantly drop the rating to “Very Poor.”
Obviously, this doesn’t make much sense and can actually discourage some people from optimizing their avatars. (Why bother optimizing other stats if the polycount alone tanks the rating the moment you go over?)
I’d like to suggest increasing the polygon thresholds for Medium and Poor ratings, with a gradual step-up between each level. This would make a lot more sense and give creators more flexibility!
I’d really love to see this system improved.
The VRC team should ultimately decide on the final values through proper testing, but personally, I think a Poor rating could go up to around 120k, and Medium could sit around 90k.
Of course, those numbers are just based on my experience, and I’m sure the team can come up with even better thresholds through data and testing.
Log In
The_Evil_Twig
The Core Problem
Right now in VRChat:
70,000 tris or less = "Good" rating
70,001+ = instantly "Very Poor"
This binary jump discourages optimization and leads to frustration. Why bother optimizing shaders, materials, and dynamic bones if one triangle tips the scale?
Godfall's Proposal (More Lenient)
Good: ≤ 70k
Medium: ~90k
Poor: ~120k
VPoor: >120k
This is flexible and creator-friendly, but Chdata is worried it could:
Encourage bloat
Lead to VRC tightening restrictions instead
Result in “Medium” and “Poor” avatars being the new average, raising system strain
Chdata's Counter-Proposal (More Restrictive)
Excellent: ≤ 30k
Good: ≤ 40k
Medium: ≤ 50k
Poor: ≤ 60k
VPoor: > 70k
This tightens limits and would likely force most custom avatars into VPoor, including those already considered well-optimized.
My In-Between Suggestion That I feel would fit better:
Excellent: ≤ 32k (same)
Good: ≤ 70k (same)
Medium: 70–80k
Poor: 80–100k
VPoor: >100k
In my opinion this is honestly the most realistic and balanced option:
Maintains existing standards up to 70k
Offers a buffer between Medium and Poor that reflects actual optimization effort
Avoids penalizing creators for going slightly over
Still discourages truly bloated avatars
Why This Makes Sense
Polygon count isn’t the only factor in performance. Avatar complexity is multifaceted (materials, bones, physics, etc.).
Hard cutoffs are demotivating. Gradual thresholds encourage creators to optimize as much as they can without being punished for going over by 1 triangle.
Balanced thresholds support VRChat’s goals of both performance and user freedom.
Chdata
I actually don't want this because the only way I can imagine this can go is that they make the poly limit restriction even more restricted.
32k for excellent
70k or less for good, medium, poor
70,001 for vpoor
to change this is just going to make good, medium, poor requirements more restricted.
the natural change would be something like
30k excellent
40k good
50k medium
60k poor
70k+1 vpoor
that restricts creators more
if you go the other way, then we'd have
32k excellent
70k good
100k medium
130k poor
160k+ vpoor
now all avatars across the board are theoretically unoptimized or a little heavier no matter how many tri you add
Dragon cater
I would love to know what the actual limits are for each rating, and ya i agree with godfall on this one.
aiko_incr
This needs to happen
͘SavageAngel
Definitely needs to be prioritized number #1 Devs help us
༒Emperor༒
never crossed my mind but this really does make sence i agree i agree
Frajs
I made a post about this the other day but yes, we really need a higher limit for Medium and Poor so they actually matter cause right now they are almost useless ranks in the performance system.
Whatever those numbers ends up being is not as important as long as they are reasonably higher to distinguish the ranks.
SimplyHappy
Most definitely!
VRDeivid
I think it's very good
KuryKat
This would be great!
Load More
→