this is because some people cross into very poor with minor things while some go over the limit of stats by 200 400%
so its hard to see among people who has truly the fps eatter and they all marked very poor
I don't think the ranks need changing but the system itself does, its retarded how it decides things.
200-400% doesnt sound very minor. I think very poor is fine enough, and if people want to see it then they'll adjust their settings. Doesn't need to be any more lenient than that.
but still the fact that not every very poor is truly bad some are.
@Repawn: yeah very poor for having a large bounding box totally makes sense
@SAAD HERO: Yeah, some are worse than others, but that doesn't mean some avatars don't qualify as very poor. If anything, maybe add a rank *behind* Very Poor like "Extremely Poor" and have those avatars hidden by default.
@KV-2 Stronk: Why do you need a large bounding box?
@Repawn: i believe its for screenspace bs
and currently the only thing that pushes on of my model to very poor is polys which are 98k and polys tend to be the lightest thing to go over the limits with
@SAAD HERO: Yeah, I'll hear you out for just that many polygons, but I dunno. If those polygons are the only thing that isn't green on that avatar, then I think there should probably be some tweaks to how that rating works. But if it's a combination of requirements not being met, then I assume it's working as it should, unless there's something I'm not thinking about.
@SAAD HERO: that's a problem I run into often from building models in Daz Studio...it's usually always clothing or hair systems that surge the count upward. A good example was a piece I worked on a few days ago --it was under 20000 polys until I added the Hair, then even after reducing the SubD, resolution and decimating what I could without utterly destroying the avatar, I could only reduce it to just under 250K polys... this was roughly a little under half of what it was at full rez (0.5M polys, or about 1/6th the complexity of the models used in the movie 'Alien - Resurrection'.
Agreed -- and really, the rating should be accompanied with a summary of the rating that is currently selected, at minimum, to let the user know what to expect from that setting.
However, I also believe that the ceiling for what ranks as 'very poor' should be raised to atleast 200000-polys & up to 300 bones to allow for more complex animated characters overall, especially going into '3.0 Avatars' once the new SDK is fully ready to take it on. Most of the avatars I've created that are rated very poor are just a few thousand polys over the 70000 limit, and are using atlas'd materials to reduce draw calls to 1 for everything that doesn't require explicit transparency. Advanced hair-systems are the primary contributor to extremely high-poly models, and more often than not, those hair systems only use 2 textures, but that's often applied to over 200000 polys by itself, pushing the resulting avatar up into the 345000-500000 range after clothing is applied. In this upper-range, there should be an explanation that 'this upper tier performance level requires a top-end PC and atleast a 100Mbit or faster internet connection'. In that range of performance (which I already exceed by nearly double on netspeed and meet on PC specs), I've had no problems whatsoever running avatars in the 350000+ poly range.
In my opinion, it's really a matter of creating a better system of tuning game-performance versus system capability --on lower-end systems, it should auto-tune the avatar performance lower as a default, with the option for the user to change it as they see fit. On the upper-end, it should default to an 'Ultra' setting that allows for avatars up to 1Mpoly, approaching the complexity of what's used in modern film-making, and meeting or exceeding the specs of AAA video game characters.
I understand the want to aim for the lowest common denominator and tailor the defaults more in line with Quest user settings, and allow the user to go upward from there on their own... but this is unguided, and in my opinion, misguided. Defaults should be based on a hardware detection methodology, with user-level customization throughout the experience. This should be combined with a user-level security/privacy system that rethinks the entire management of what a user chooses to see vs what they choose to block --whether that be avatars with extremely high polys or other draw-call issues, or if it's filtering out automatically of other user's audio that exceeds a set decibel rating (to avoid getting your ear drums busted by some noob-screaming-voice-troll).
You need to just check their stats. That's why it's there. If I have an animation locked behind an emote and a gesture so it only ever renders when I WANT it to, then you may see my stats at Very Poor when the only thing you're rendering is probably the most optimized Avatar in the instance.
@Saigo K: checking is good but sometimes you join a 40+ or once nearly 80 people good luck finding who is giving you frame drops who has thousand bones lol
i dont think is needed - very poor is that - there is a cutoff - i dont think vrchat thought ppl would be uploading models with 100+ materials @500k polygons - they exist and tbh - they need to be wiped from VRChat - There is no need to make an avatar thats very poor - it's just ppl being lazy
@Oshino Yoshida: You must not do or see anything interesting on Avatars.Some people will be marked very poor for things you may only ever see if they intentionally trigger the animation for it. The only thing you may see regularly is probably more optimized than you to compensate for all the things they added dragging their stats down.
Anyway, that's why VRC lets you decide what you want to see now instead of imposing (trying to, at least) hard limits on the SDK like they use to.
@Oshino Yoshida: still does not change the fact that some go slightly over 70k or 17 materials and get the same rank as a 3mil poly k material crashers and some stuff on models that can make them look nice will push you over the rank to very poor an example my model is 32k poly with her outlines she is 98k does not mean i affect fps harshly thats a 50% over the 70k limit roughly
@Saigo K: yea this is true for me 40k of my 98k are just one mesh thats hidden until i spawn it
adding 50+ k for an outline - says it all rly
@Oshino Yoshida: polys are the least hit on fps. most games have millions of polys renedered on screen and gpus are meant to handle the polys counts easily i never got fps dips from poly count in vrchat
This would be useful for differentiating someone with just one too many materials as Very Poor, vs the Very Poor user with a crasher using 500 materials.
@Chdata: because of some of the methods people crash its possible to have crashers with good performance, I onestly think they should just limit shaders or only allow approved shaders
@NekoKing 69: They've thought about that, I wish they'd communicate why the hell they don't.
Like, approved vs unapproved shaders could be an option. If people want to risk using "unapproved" shaders, we should be allowed to choose.
I'm sad to have to agree with this but I do. I'm fine with most very poor avatars but there is the odd one that just kills me
@dan max: yea most are alright but sometimes one appears that should be on a whole new league of its own of lag