Feature Requests

Please check out the following guidelines before suggesting a feature! Off-topic posts will be deleted.
18+ gated Worlds and Avatars with verified-only visibilty for the Adult Communities
Currently we have the choice between Public or Private worlds and avatars. Everything that is private is hidden and inaccessible. - As an artist, noone would find your private content if you have no direct link. - Private avatars can't be used from other players. Of course it makes sense that you can't access other people's avatars, that were meant to represent JUST them. But commissioned avatars can't be NSFW, otherwise it would be against TOS, if they'd just be uploaded publicly by the artist. - With millions of avatars the mod team can't go through every single one and I sometimes ran into clearly public NSFW uploads in avatar search worlds. - Private worlds can't be saved to favorites without programs like VRCX, making them even harder to find. - But also some creators are giving access to kinky private worlds via link and everyone can get into that world via said link. So even non-verified people would roam around NSFW worlds, but noone would even notice. But why not using the exising 18+ verified badge for worlds and avatars similiar to how it is already used for accessing instances? I already see request-only groups in which you're not accepted, if not age-verified. And instances being age gated to allow kinky communities to not be hidden in private and to be legal. I recommend a similar step for Worlds and Avatars. + All the points above would not be a problem, if we would have a third category for both avatars and worlds -> [18+]. + Every not verified person could not wear such an avatar. + Every not verified person would see such an avatar as a robot, not showing them. + Every not verified person could not join any instance to such a world, even when having the link from chats they shouldn't roam in. + 18+ Worlds and Avatars could even be invisible and not listed for not verified people. + Artists would not have to hide their content anymore, never to be seen from anyone. + Noone have to deal with very unhandy downsides anymore, like being unable to favorite private worlds or can't upload NSFW avatars publicly for friends or customers. It would give a safespace for not just the many kinky bubbles out there, but also for the masses of vanilla NSFW people, who're searching for communities, that're not nearly invisible. I think age verification will spread much more with such an update. > Why even bother? Recently I received many messages of friends who uploaded teasy worlds or ran teasy groups and meetups. VRC is not just used by minors. Those friends were temp-banned and their groups and worlds deleted. Sometimes content that was uploaded for 5 years to the public and people had nice memories there. Worlds with 100s of thousands of visits and thousands of favorite entries. The need for such worlds and groups is obvious. It also often isn't obvious why. Those groups or worlds had no naked characters in them, but instead kink groups and worlds with suggestive content, that they were into. People in my bubbles starting to be confused about what's okay and what not anymore. Especially because there is no warning, no 'set to private until review', just deletion and temp-ban. And the explanation mail always just states 'against our guidelines.' Yeah which of those exactly and what detail in that world was too much? People can't really learn from that, just repeating what they're always doing and running into the same problem again. VRC mods being stricter to keep the public free of any lewd content? Okay, but then give us a red-light district at the harbor. If there was an 18+ option for worlds, every kink content creator automatically categorized their work there, to be safe but not longer hidden. So many users would have reason to breathe a sigh of relief, and your mod team would be way less in stress. VRC itself stated "Let adults be adults." Yes, give us places that're gated by a bouncer checking your ID, not just tolerating hidden blackmarkets that're accessible through a hole close to the sewers.
17
Increase Limit on Active Avatar Audio Sources (to 4+)
TL;DR: If we could have even just 4-6 active 3D audio sources on avatars, it would open a giant world of possibilities in creation. The details for those who are curious: I understand the potential reasons behind having a limit of 3 audio sources. Audio crashers were a real problem way back when; but that's just it, way back when. VRChat has a lot of adjustments and safety features for audio sources currently, and when it comes to avatar creation, 3 sources is very limiting for complicated audio setups. Here's an example from my personal experience: For the creation of avatars for combat roleplay, I use UdonVoiceUtils in my worlds to increase the maximum avatar audio distance. The weapons on my avatars compliment this by having close, near and far audio. This helps convey information very well for the people roleplaying, as if there's a gunshot, they can hear it from across the map and it will sound correctly spatialized. However, this causes an issue as without the ability to have audio effects on avatars or advanced curves, the only way I can do this is by spawning 2-3 sources at a time. This means that firing a weapon will cut out other audio, such as foley when operating the weapon (reloading and such.) This also means avatars with contact based footsteps will very frequently have their audio culled in favor of either the weapon or the footsteps. Now, these are not HUGE issues as the gunfire gets priority generally, and that's what's most important to communicate to the players in combat. However, with the new VRC Raycast system, the concept of having audio feedback on hitting the environment and players has been in my mind, however the only way I can do that is by reducing the amount of active audio sources on the weapon... however that means I'll have to sacrifice one of the layers of the firing audio, which consequentially may make the feeling of combat less enjoyable and / or reduce the amount of information available to the players in a given moment. Granted, I know my specific case is a niche utility, but I feel like for many other creators, having even a marginal increase to the amount of allowed active audio sources could open a world of possibility. I've seen discussion on this canny for things like DJ avatars and complex animations, and I fully agree with that. If we had, say, 4-6 allowed active 3D audio sources, it would really open up a huge range of possibilities without going too far and risking audio crashers / unoptimized audio setups. Especially considering the relatively recent implementation of a new audio engine, I feel like it should be well within the realm of possibility to give creators more breathing room with audio. I know that for me personally, it would make creating roleplay avatars significantly easier and allow me to improve the fidelity of them significantly. This doesn't have to impact performance much either, especially if there is a hard limit placed on the amount of audio sources on an avatar. You really don't need more than 32 if your project is contained and you know how to use them effectively, and that's being incredibly generous to be honest. If there is a deeper technical limitation behind this, or it doesn't operate the way I say, please let me know. I want this for the benefit of the community and as such if there is a reason this isn't possible then I want to be able to at least educate people on that reason. Please bring attention to this as well, I don't expect this to get a ton of traction or even for this change to come ever, but it would be awesome if it saw a little focus.
3
Update to the number of triangles in the performance ranks
Current problems Almost all avatars have a performance rank of "Very Poor," making it virtually impossible to block avatars based on their performance rank. This means that blocking based on polygon count or texture size, which directly impact performance, is currently impossible. While other blocking methods exist, such as blocking by download size or uncompressed size, these are insufficient alternatives as they are also affected by texture compression settings and the size of other assets. As a side note, because the performance ranking system is effectively non-functional and has no limitations, the polygon count of avatars and costumes sold on BOOTH seems to be increasing year after year without limit. Recently, commonly used avatars have approximately 150,000 tris, and costumes have approximately 200,000 tris. Request details I think the triangle count in the performance ranking system needs to be updated. Currently, all grades below "Good" have a uniform polygon count of 70,000. This limitation is a bit excessive for current hardware. https://creators.vrchat.com/avatars/avatar-performance-ranking-system/ Remarks I have conducted some (very simple) testing in the past. I believe that optimizing to under 300,000 tris is sufficient for instances like talking with a small number of friends, and under 70,000 tris for large instances like events. The testing was done with a single avatar, but I created a tool to ensure that each mesh is a separate asset for the testing. https://misskey.niri.la/notes/aggjg6jmjz I'll leave the final updated figures to the VRChat staff, but I have roughly the following figures in mind. Poor: 300,000 tris Medium: 150,000 tris Good: 70,000 tris Related posts https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/option-to-not-take-polygons-into-account-when-enabling-minimum-displayed-perform https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/client-side-polygon-limit-slider https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/avatar-polygon-limit-in-safety-settings https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/increase-the-polygon-limit-by-30k-for-medium-ranked-avatars-on-pc https://feedback.vrchat.com/avatar-30/p/incremental-triangle-limit-for-performance-rankings https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/add-performance-rank-that-exceeded-polygon-limit https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/performance-ranks-below-very-poor 日本語 / Japanese 現在の問題 ほとんど全てのアバターのパフォーマンスランクがVery Poorであるため、パフォーマンスランクを使用したアバターのブロックが事実上できない状態になっています。つまり現在は負荷に直結するポリゴン数やテクスチャサイズでのブロックが不可能です。他のブロック手段としてダウンロードサイズ、非圧縮サイズによるブロックも存在しますが、テクスチャの圧縮設定やテクスチャ以外のアセットサイズによっても変動するため代替とするには不十分です。 余談ですが、パフォーマンスランキングシステムが事実上機能しておらず制限も存在しないため、BOOTHで販売されているアバターや衣装のポリゴン数が年々際限なく増え続けているようです。最近よく使われているアバターのポリゴン数はおよそ15万ポリゴン、衣装はおよそ20万ポリゴンになっています。 リクエスト内容 パフォーマンスランキングシステムのトライアングル数をアップデートする必要があると思います。現在ではGood以下は一律7万ポリゴンです。この制限は現在のハードウェアにとっては少し過剰です。 備考 私は過去に(非常に単純な)検証を行いました。少人数のフレンドと会話するようなインスタンスでは30万ポリゴン以下、イベントなどの大人数インスタンスでは7万ポリゴン以下を目安に最適化すれば十分であると考えています。検証は単一のアバターで行われていますが、メッシュはそれぞれ別アセットになるようにツールを作成して検証しています。 https://misskey.niri.la/notes/aggjg6jmjz 更新後の数値の決定はVRChatのスタッフにおまかせしますが、私は大まかに以下の数値をイメージしています。 Poor: 300,000 tris Medium: 150,000 tris Good: 70,000 tris 関連する投稿 https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/option-to-not-take-polygons-into-account-when-enabling-minimum-displayed-perform https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/client-side-polygon-limit-slider https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/avatar-polygon-limit-in-safety-settings https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/increase-the-polygon-limit-by-30k-for-medium-ranked-avatars-on-pc https://feedback.vrchat.com/avatar-30/p/incremental-triangle-limit-for-performance-rankings https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/add-performance-rank-that-exceeded-polygon-limit https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/performance-ranks-below-very-poor
39
Load More