There's so much of it, and the quality is usually low. Sure we get some great animations out of it but most of the time there's so much clipping and low quality models, not to mention there's atleast 1/3rd more still pictures made with SFM than animated pieces, and even then only about half of the animated content is anything more than a short loop

What is the minimal amount of effort that needs to be put into something before it belongs on this site instead of being deleted for being low quality?

From my limited knowledge of the program, posts like post #1576249, post #1505090, and post #1564826 could have easily taken less than half an hour to make if had a basic idea of how the program works, not including time to find/ download models

it's a bootleg animation tool for people who don't want to learn how to use real animation tools like blender.

Examples, first deleted, second is superior version of pretty old post and third one does have more effort put into it other than just posing the model and hitting render.

3D artwork is already being handled slightly differendly from other mediums, in sense that only things that the creator did themselves count towards overall quality. That essentially means that someone just taking renamon model and posing it sloppily won't get trough even if enviroments and model looks good. That does also mean that those doing models and animations themselves have much better chance of staying up even if they have similar clipping, etc. problems.

Chaser said:
it's a bootleg animation tool for people who don't want to learn how to use real animation tools like blender.

If you can animate with it then what makes it not a "real" animation tool? Really, you can do a lot more than just animate in Blender, so, if anything, I'd consider that a 3D Tools Suite as opposed to SFM which looks to be explicitly an animation tool.

I've never subscribed to the idea that animation has to be difficult or a time-consuming process to learn. Custom modeling, texturing, mapping, etc, on the other hand, yes. However creating something from nothing has always been something that's time consuming. Animating using assets that are pre-made is a bit like taking an RC car and driving it around. Sure, there are certain things you can tweak and do to make it drive better on the terrain you have or the like, but your ability to do things is limited unless you have the skill and tools to take it apart and modify it on a deeper level.

More onto the OP's concerns,

I feel that it's nice that people can animate without needing to know how to model or utilize complex programs such as Max, Maya, or Blender. Yet, on that same note, I've seen some animators become really interested in the whole process, so much so that they eventually transition into those sorts of programs and begin creating their own assets, environments, etc.

It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and I think that's really cool as well. As someone that went to college years ago to do that sorta stuff I've gotta say that I really like that there are programs out now that are easy enough to get into and use to make people interested in more than just consuming 3D Media. I really like that there's so much free advice, knowledge, and other stuff on both SFM and other programs that can teach people to do this kind of stuff without them having to spend a cent or learn an in environment that may be out of date because the curriculum or the hardware is a bit behind.

I don't mind that there's a lot of people that get into SFM and create content they like and then try to post it. There's still a quality-threshold on the site and so much of the SFM stuff is more human than not so it doesn't even get posted here, it usually goes to places like naughtymachinima or pornhub. Eventually people either get better or they quit, from what I've seen. Sometimes they get better only within the program, other times they find the program the used to love too constraining and decide to go on the adventure of creating and animating their own original assets in a more complex tool such as Blender.

I've never felt that art needs to take a long time to be quality or to be worth looking at. If you can make something beautiful in a short time, then more power to you! Admittedly, that isn't often the case. When it isn't I don't feel that people should be punished or dissuaded. They'll get the bit of recognition they'll get and it'll either be enough to encourage them to do better or not enough for them to feel like it's worth their time and they'll quit or turn it into an on-again-off-again hobby.

Regardless, you ask a good question. However grading the quality of work is something that's a bit beyond you or I on this site. I can't really say the Admins are the most qualified to do so, either (who really is when art is such a subjective medium?), however they are the ones that do so and in such they're the only ones who can answer that and even then, only the ones that actually do that sort of stuff.

What I can tell you is that "effort" isn't a good way to judge these sorts of things. Someone might put quite a lot of effort into something that, quality wise, just doesn't make the cut. Someone else might be so skilled, talented, and creatively inclined that they can jam out a Starry Night or Mona Lisa in just a few minutes with little effort (and I'm not talking about actually replicating them, I mean producing something others consider top-quality or a masterpiece.) It doesn't seem like "how long it takes to make" is something the admins usually take into account but, instead, they seem to focus entirely on the aesthetic quality. Bringing up things that you did, clipping, detail, various effects, etc.

The minimum quality is something that's been asked quite a few times and, as the admins themselves have said, it depends on who gets to it first. I have no idea if there's some sort of actual standard that they keep in the Cool-Kid's Club™, assuming they even have an area cordoned off where they share admin-memes and complain about the most annoying users of the time, or if it's just a sort of brief "talking to" once they get inducted and they just go off the cuff from there. They also don't really let us know how they decide things, either.

So, really, if I had any advice for you, OP, I'd say to just not worry about it. Don't concern yourself with what is and isn't high enough quality unless you're uploading your own work. If you (or anyone reading this) is uploading your own work then I suggest you look around, see what's still there and compare your own work to it. I'd suggest trying to compare to posts that are moderately popular instead of things that have few upvotes. The users themselves flock toward quality submissions and while something may be "favorited" quite a few times they only really seem to upvote when it's a decent quality submission. I'd say when it comes to SFM stuff, compare yours to stuff that has similar content and gets 10+ upvotes. If, for example, you notice more clipping on yours, if yours doesn't have synced sound and theirs does, or you otherwise notice ways you can improve yours when comparing then the safe bet would be to try to improve before uploading. If you objectively find yours to be on par or better then, sure, give it a shot. But don't look at just one, compare it to a good few and try to make them within the last 3 months. (Lots of rules change and things that may have once been acceptable may no longer be. Fairly recent submissions will give you a better overall idea on the current state of things.)

It's good to compare, see where you can improve, come up with ideas you hadn't thought of before, etc. But don't get hung up on doing that sort of stuff. It's easy to obsess, so try to stay objective. To help with objectivity and so you don't get all up in your own head about this try to upload previews and the like to imgur to share with other artists you know or just other people in general, get their ideas and comments before posting. When creating content like this the beginning is always the most difficult, there's no hard "line" drawn, no specific qualities you have to meet or exceed, so that's why it's better to ask in DMs, blips, or just ask in a forum dedicated to you asking about such things. Making preview images and videos on imgur will help quite a bit to get useful comments and advice. With that feedback you won't fall into the trap of spending a lot of effort on something that won't make the cut, which also means you won't spend a lot of time hammering in bad habits and skills. However, you need to actually TAKE the advice and comments, yet doesn't mean you need to take them to heart, especially if they're aggressive or just mean without any actual content. Regardless, you should put at least a little weight into most of the feedback you get because when you ask for it most people will genuinely try to give you something helpful. Of course putting a bit more weight behind the feedback of someone that knows what they're talking about isn't a bad idea as the normal user will like and enjoy something that someone with a more discerning eye won't, but it should only be a little more weight, don't go putting anyone on a pedestal. The collective message is often more objectively helpful than the message of one or two professionals.

Regardless, no matter how many times you rework and redo while you practice and get better if you have some big project idea you can keep working on your idea as you progress. If you do that, however, you mustn't get discouraged by lack of visible progress on the project, instead you must weigh yourself more by the progress on your actual skills and knowledge. Even if you can't see it (we're often our harshest critic) ask others if they can see a difference. They don't have it in front of them for hours at a time over many days, weeks, months, etc, they haven't gradually progressed with it over time, so their ability to objectively see even minor improvements in your skill will, be better than your own.

Furry character 3D pics sometimes look decent, there are a few I liked. However those shitty mlp sfm animations/still pics are just awful. Putting a cartoonish pony head on a human body model... ugh. Seems like more effort goes into posing or animating than the actual models. They get reused so many times yet nobody bothers with improving them. And they usually get a good rating and a lot of faves, it makes me wonder if the people here actually want quality art or not.

I don't have a problem with 3D art, I have a problem with bad 3D art.

and also, +1 for AnotherDay's response. He made valid points.

Considering a lot of them use mismatched models with mismatched bits, Lighting snafus and such, I really don't care for them.

..That and what the $%^& is the obsession everyone using SFM has for bumping the specular so far up everything looks like it's made of greased vinyl?

And even when I do go the extra mile to make precise lighting, ambient occlusion, volumetrics, people still take a crap on SFM, but I digress. Most other SFM art on here doesn't even bother using light sources, AO, or even correct FOV with the cameras.

I'd use Blender if the GUI wasn't so damn convoluted.

But it's nice to see people shitting on SFM as a whole on account of the lower quality work.

fox_whisper85 said:
And even when I do go the extra mile to make precise lighting, ambient occlusion, volumetrics, people still take a crap on SFM, but I digress. Most other SFM art on here doesn't even bother using light sources, AO, or even correct FOV with the cameras.

I'd use Blender if the GUI wasn't so damn convoluted.

But it's nice to see people shitting on SFM as a whole on account of the lower quality work.

Light isn't properly implemented in SFM, so even if you use all the tools at your disposal it's still going to look artificial simply because the program can't actually make it look real. There's also no "correct" FOV considering focal length and depth change based on the type of lens used in real life.

SFM is like Lego, an amateurs tool. While it's possible to make amazing things with it you couldn't build a functioning 1:1 Boeing out of Lego.

FoxFourOhFour said:
..That and what the $%^& is the obsession everyone using SFM has for bumping the specular so far up everything looks like it's made of greased vinyl?

It's like that with ReShade or ENB as well, people just go haywire with the setting and use extreme settings that have little to do with how things look like in reality. Just because things can go to 11 doesn't mean they should be set to that.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's like that with ReShade or ENB as well, people just go haywire with the setting and use extreme settings that have little to do with how things look like in reality. Just because things can go to 11 doesn't mean they should be set to that.

Thank you! I'm glad someone has a sane sense about ReShade and ENB. No one I know personally does. They're either in the category of "super glowy foggy over-saturated to 11 is great" or "you can't make anything look good with it" no in-between.

NotMeNotYou said:
Light isn't properly implemented in SFM, so even if you use all the tools at your disposal it's still going to look artificial simply because the program can't actually make it look real. There's also no "correct" FOV considering focal length and depth change based on the type of lens used in real life.

SFM is like Lego, an amateurs tool. While it's possible to make amazing things with it you couldn't build a functioning 1:1 Boeing out of Lego.

It's like that with ReShade or ENB as well, people just go haywire with the setting and use extreme settings that have little to do with how things look like in reality. Just because things can go to 11 doesn't mean they should be set to that.

Sweet, perhaps it'd be in my best interests that I should maybe refrain from posting SFM renders (or any other 3D) on here, just to spite the *ahem* critics off, heh The general consensus on this thread certainly gives off that vibe that SFM users aren't entirely welcomed and looked down upon. I'll be sure to spread the word and ask that other SFM users do the same. I can take a hint. At least I know there are many people willing to piss on those who use it instead of Blender and its convoluted AF GUI. But hey, to each their own, right?

It's reassuring to know how hated and abhorrent in the eyes of many users SFM is in these parts.

C'est la vie.

fox_whisper85 said:
Sweet, perhaps it'd be in my best interests that I should maybe refrain from posting SFM renders (or any other 3D) on here, just to spite the *ahem* critics off, heh The general consensus on this thread certainly gives off that vibe that SFM users aren't entirely welcomed and looked down upon. I'll be sure to spread the word and ask that other SFM users do the same. I can take a hint. At least I know there are many people willing to piss on those who use it instead of Blender and its convoluted AF GUI. But hey, to each their own, right?

It's reassuring to know how hated and abhorrent in the eyes of many users SFM is in these parts.

C'est la vie.

If you're actually putting in a lot of work and also manage to make it look good despite the broken lighting system, then it's fine.

Furrin_Gok said:
If you're actually putting in a lot of work and also manage to make it look good despite the broken lighting system, then it's fine.

Is it? I beg to differ, it's certainly not the vibe I'm getting in this thread, no matter how much effort I put into the renders, it still gets pissed on. Just look at the scores on my recent submissions for example. I'm seriously reconsidering putting my work elsewhere and requesting that my work is DNP.

Now I'm self-conscious about the things I do make in SFM and now I'm unmotivated.

Thread summary - Use SFM, you're an amateur artist who can't amount to anything.

So yeah, I'm a little cynical right now given that people are shitting on SFM users, the program, the things made with it, etc. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt myself, what is the point?

fox_whisper85 said:
Is it? I beg to differ, it's certainly not the vibe I'm getting in this thread, no matter how much effort I put into the renders, it still gets pissed on. Just look at the scores on my recent submissions for example. I'm seriously reconsidering putting my work elsewhere and requesting that my work is DNP.

Now I'm self-conscious about the things I do make in SFM and now I'm unmotivated.

Thread summary - Use SFM, you're an amateur artist who can't amount to anything.

So yeah, I'm a little cynical right now given that people are shitting on SFM users, the program, the things made with it, etc. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt myself, what is the point?

You're bound to get somebody who doesn't like something either way around. Maybe you made things hard on yourself using a program that requires more effort, maybe you've made things easy by using a program that does things for you.

Personally, I only dislike the people who are lazy and use premade models and just toss the limbs into position, doing no other work, but those who actually put in a good amount of work are good artists.

aurel said:
meh. This again... ....

https://78.media.tumblr.com/66e44294be982b982e24f66db7f89740/tumblr_omkyfpAERD1urai6ho1_500.gif
This is a gif pulled out of cartoon, Dragon_Booster, this is obviously rendered in 3d, yet the shaders mimic the flat colors of 2d drawing. Clearly, not realistic, however, clean and good looking. While done in a render engine that was obsolete by age of the dinosaurs.

To note to fox and NMNY, the SFM vs blender, is not an issue. Nearly everything posted under blender tag does not use the capabilities of blender itself, nor reach the levels of realism SFM is capable of. Nor SFM renderer is particularly bad.

So, what is the issue?
The issue are low quality models.... well, technically no.
The issue is THE SAME low quality models.

Creating a base mesh and animating it, is at best, a several hour work if you are running off for a youtube speedrun. A better estimate would be a week or two, and can drag on for a month if you seek specific quality.

Thus, the greater labour demands greater respect. Produce a character of your own, from mesh to textures, to rigging. Thats worth more than any sfm post, even if rendered in GLSL.
.... actually dont, that gives brain cancer. ... and can still end up looking poorly.
try drawing :'D
everyone likes those..
... assuming dick is involved.

...not doing hyper post would probably help too

Then what do you suggest? Even when I do put forth effort, people lump it with the lower quality stuff, do they not? Ugh. Someone give me money for a tablet, and I will draw.

Furrin_Gok said:
You're bound to get somebody who doesn't like something either way around. Maybe you made things hard on yourself using a program that requires more effort, maybe you've made things easy by using a program that does things for you.

Personally, I only dislike the people who are lazy and use premade models and just toss the limbs into position, doing no other work, but those who actually put in a good amount of work are good artists.

And to some people, SFM isn't even art, or rather, 3D isn't art to them. Not sure what to do, but I'm not feeling all that motivated right now.

fox_whisper85 said:
Then what do you suggest? Even when I do put forth effort, people lump it with the lower quality stuff, do they not? Ugh. Someone give me money for a tablet, and I will draw.

And to some people, SFM isn't even art, or rather, 3D isn't art to them. Not sure what to do, but I'm not feeling all that motivated right now.

What you should do is just ignore the haters. It may not be the easiest thing right off the bat, but unless it's proper criticism (ie, somebody points out some clipping you missed, which is something that can reasonably be fixed in SFM), learn to ignore them as being biased. If you feel like you need to take a break for now, then go ahead, but I don't recommend going DNP.

Furrin_Gok said:
What you should do is just ignore the haters. It may not be the easiest thing right off the bat, but unless it's proper criticism (ie, somebody points out some clipping you missed, which is something that can reasonably be fixed in SFM), learn to ignore them as being biased. If you feel like you need to take a break for now, then go ahead, but I don't recommend going DNP.

I don't mind criticism, I just can't stand overt hatred or abhorrence towards SFM just for the sake of hating something because "I don't like it" or some stupid reason like that. No, I won't go DNP, I will simply refrain from posting my work on here for an indeterminate amount of time. *sigh* It's not like I have the skills to make models, much less use Blender or Zbrush or something, but yeah. I'm getting some bad vibes from certain users who will remain nameless.

fox_whisper85 said:
I don't mind criticism, I just can't stand overt hatred or abhorrence towards SFM just for the sake of hating something because "I don't like it" or some stupid reason like that. No, I won't go DNP, I will simply refrain from posting my work on here for an indeterminate amount of time. *sigh* It's not like I have the skills to make models, much less use Blender or Zbrush or something, but yeah. I'm getting some bad vibes from certain users who will remain nameless.

If they're repeatedly hating on everything just because it's SFM, report them for not using their blacklist.

fox_whisper85 said:
Sweet, perhaps it'd be in my best interests that I should maybe refrain from posting SFM renders (or any other 3D) on here, just to spite the *ahem* critics off, heh The general consensus on this thread certainly gives off that vibe that SFM users aren't entirely welcomed and looked down upon. I'll be sure to spread the word and ask that other SFM users do the same. I can take a hint. At least I know there are many people willing to piss on those who use it instead of Blender and its convoluted AF GUI. But hey, to each their own, right?

It's reassuring to know how hated and abhorrent in the eyes of many users SFM is in these parts.

C'est la vie.

I've explicitly used Lego as analogy because Lego is amazing but it's not in the same weight class as a fully fledged workshop with metal 3D printer, CNC mills, and welding benches. SFM and Blender are two completely different pairs of shoes for different users, and both are extremely good at what they want to accomplish.

The Mona Lisa is artificial, because you're able to tell on a glance that it isn't a photograph. Does that make the Mona Lisa bad? I'd argue it doesn't because even the Mona Lisa didn't go for absolute hyper-realism. If you don't want to make art that isn't supposed to be nearly indistinguishable from real life you don't need Blender, SFM is perfectly capable of creating high quality renders.

The spiel about FOV was simply what I said there: There isn't a "correct" one. There can't be a correct one because FOV is simply what results from the focal length of a camera's lens(es). Just as in real life you can use different lenses for different effects, and you can pick one in SFM (or blender) that suits your desired outcome best. And just as in traditional photography it's absolutely worth it to experiment with different lenses / effects just to see how it affects your resulting picture.

So in conclusion, Blender is currently (besides Maya) the nonplus-ultra in rendering if you absolutely must have a tool that allows you to compose and render a scene down to the last polygon, vertex, light ray, and pixel. If you don't need that type of precision and control SFM is an absolutely perfect substitute.

Furrin_Gok said:
If they're repeatedly hating on everything just because it's SFM, report them for not using their blacklist.

Oh believe me, I've seen some individuals who hate on certain programs, fetishes solely for the sake of hating because "they don't like it".

NotMeNotYou said:
I've explicitly used Lego as analogy because Lego is amazing but it's not in the same weight class as a fully fledged workshop with metal 3D printer, CNC mills, and welding benches. SFM and Blender are two completely different pairs of shoes for different users, and both are extremely good at what they want to accomplish.

The Mona Lisa is artificial, because you're able to tell on a glance that it isn't a photograph. Does that make the Mona Lisa bad? I'd argue it doesn't because even the Mona Lisa didn't go for absolute hyper-realism. If you don't want to make art that isn't supposed to be nearly indistinguishable from real life you don't need Blender, SFM is perfectly capable of creating high quality renders.

The spiel about FOV was simply what I said there: There isn't a "correct" one. There can't be a correct one because FOV is simply what results from the focal length of a camera's lens(es). Just as in real life you can use different lenses for different effects, and you can pick one in SFM (or blender) that suits your desired outcome best. And just as in traditional photography it's absolutely worth it to experiment with different lenses / effects just to see how it affects your resulting picture.

So in conclusion, Blender is currently (besides Maya) the nonplus-ultra in rendering if you absolutely must have a tool that allows you to compose and render a scene down to the last polygon, vertex, light ray, and pixel. If you don't need that type of precision and control SFM is an absolutely perfect substitute.

I would love nothing more than to use Blender, believe me. The GUI/interface is far too daunting for me to navigate, but I've seen some ridiculously good renders in there as well. Only other issue is I don't think my machine can render ambient occlusion at 2048 samples with volumetric lights and AA, maybe. Not sure if a 4 GB GTX 970 and Core i7 4770 are enough. Apologies about the earlier PM, there are people out there who legitimately despise people who use SFM. I just needed to understand, thank you.

As for the OP, have you considered just blacklisting SFM? Or just blacklisting any pick that has a score of -2 or below?

fox_whisper85 said:
Then what do you suggest? Even when I do put forth effort, people lump it with the lower quality stuff, do they not?

well... Here's my opinion: I don't know anything about 3d stuff. I don't know what SFM or Blender or whatever are.

I literally do not care and have no knowledge about any of these programs.

What I *can* tell is that some art is better than others. and tha'ts true no matter what art we're looking at: 2d, 3d, sketch or finished work, still or animation.

And this is probably true for most people.

The people who hate on SFM stuff need to use their blacklists.

That said, from what I gather here... SFM is a lower quality tool. it's nto that you can't achieve good things with it, but that it's easier to achieve more with other skills.

I've seen some people who draw everything 100% with a mouse. they can make some AMAZING artwork that I can't do with a tablet. with a mouse.

Everyone 'knows' that MS paint is worthless, and that real artists use sai or photoshop or whatever the cool kids are using these days. Yet: look at what people do!

Use what you want to use! make good art! :D

Oh believe me, I've seen some individuals who hate on certain programs, fetishes solely for the sake of hating because "they don't like it".

Report them. They have a blacklist for a reason!

Personally I'm just not into the anatomy styles (notably giant balloon tits/ass) and surface texture of the majority of SFM models I've seen.
The same reasons jessica_anner and mass_effect are on my blacklist, though that was mostly so I wouldn't have to carefully mouseover every damn male/female animation thumbnail back when .webms just had the white square.

I don't tend to come here to see human flesh with a flat paintjob over it.
Looking at some recent stills, there are a couple of images that have some post-production work to emulate fur, though I'm not sure how well they'd hold up on nude models, and obviously aren't much of an option for animation.

post #1569932 This one's photoshop-blurred, and while it looks really weird if you zoom in on the edges I overall find it more appealing than a flat model surface
post #1573071 This one's got detail painted over some of the fur. and Fox's tail is entirely painted in because they forgot to pose it.

More often than not, it's an eyesore. Most all the characters look like lifeless blow up dolls, which isn't helped by the often stiff and uncanny animations, while the still frame pics look like awkward dollhouse set pics. And a majority of models are lazy head swaps with the same male/female body for whatever goofily rendered head is available for a furry character.

MagnusEffect said:
Personally I'm just not into the anatomy styles (notably giant balloon tits/ass) and surface texture of the majority of SFM models I've seen.
The same reasons jessica_anner and mass_effect are on my blacklist, though that was mostly so I wouldn't have to carefully mouseover every damn male/female animation thumbnail back when .webms just had the white square.

I don't tend to come here to see human flesh with a flat paintjob over it.
Looking at some recent stills, there are a couple of images that have some post-production work to emulate fur, though I'm not sure how well they'd hold up on nude models, and obviously aren't much of an option for animation.

post #1569932 This one's photoshop-blurred, and while it looks really weird if you zoom in on the edges I overall find it more appealing than a flat model surface
post #1573071 This one's got detail painted over some of the fur. and Fox's tail is entirely painted in because they forgot to pose it.

Artists make mistakes, they forget things to do in their pics, give them a break. So why can't you just blacklist SFM? Not really hard to do, is it? Clearly, you seem to hate it for the sake of hating it. It's one thing to critique art, and that's fine, it's quite another to blatantly hate something because you don't like it and refuse to
blacklist it, etc, it's really counterproductive and a waste of time IMO.

SnowWolf said:
well... Here's my opinion: I don't know anything about 3d stuff. I don't know what SFM or Blender or whatever are.

I literally do not care and have no knowledge about any of these programs.

What I *can* tell is that some art is better than others. and tha'ts true no matter what art we're looking at: 2d, 3d, sketch or finished work, still or animation.

And this is probably true for most people.

The people who hate on SFM stuff need to use their blacklists.

That said, from what I gather here... SFM is a lower quality tool. it's nto that you can't achieve good things with it, but that it's easier to achieve more with other skills.

I've seen some people who draw everything 100% with a mouse. they can make some AMAZING artwork that I can't do with a tablet. with a mouse.

Everyone 'knows' that MS paint is worthless, and that real artists use sai or photoshop or whatever the cool kids are using these days. Yet: look at what people do!

Use what you want to use! make good art! :D

Report them. They have a blacklist for a reason!

I'm sorry that I've been cynical about this whole thread and people refusing to blacklist things they hate, ugh.

fox_whisper85 said:
Artists make mistakes, they forget things to do in their pics, give them a break.

Wew lad, I'm literally just pointing out something the artist pointed out. It doesn't even look bad.

So why can't you just blacklist SFM? Not really hard to do, is it? Clearly, you seem to hate it for the sake of hating it. It's one thing to critique art, and that's fine, it's quite another to blatantly hate something because you don't like it and refuse to
blacklist it, etc, it's really counterproductive and a waste of time IMO.

I don't need to blacklist it because it doesn't cause as much of a flood in results pages, so I can just scroll past any thumbnail that doesn't appeal to me. I also showed a couple of SFM-based images I actually like.
I don't even have downvotes on any of your posts, and my only comment on one of them is neutral. It's not a matter of hate, just a matter of generally not my thing. (And the reasons it's not my thing aren't inherently because it's SFM)

Same way I feel about the use of bases and "OC" generators, it very often looks lazy, samey, and ugly.

Chaser said:
it's a bootleg animation tool for people who don't want to learn how to use real animation tools like blender.

While in my own opinion Blender is better than SFM, that doesn't make it a bootleg. A bootleg is a poorly made knockoff of a better product. If it's supposedly a bootleg, what specific piece of software is it ripping off?

AutLizard said:
While in my own opinion Blender is better than SFM, that doesn't make it a bootleg. A bootleg is a poorly made knockoff of a better product. If it's supposedly a bootleg, what specific piece of software is it ripping off?

Obviously, since it doesn't require "as much skill" or the fact that it's more user friendly and less of a PITA to use than Blender, clearly that's enough to consider it a bootleg. Gimme a freaking break.

Blender being better is a given, but until that damn GUI is less convoluted, I refuse to us it.

I do quite a ton privately, i really wanted to upload somethings but after seeing how they are over here i got really in doubth.
There are a ton of well fucking done pony ones and some warframe top notch animations too, but when you go the middle ground or the more low tier stuff you just don't know you can post something withount it being deleted, you see stuff that are just literrally done in 4 fucking minutes or less with an IK rig where the guy didn't even bothered to position the hands and it gets approved even with bad as heck AO an lightning FROM THE FUCKING MAP.
It's pretty much feel like one guy accepts shitty quality done things and the other don't accept mid tier things even with scenemaking and such.

CCoyote said:
I absolutely hate it for all the reasons @ThatBIackGuy listed above. To me, it represents the epitome of bad and lazy in the world of furry artwork. In my personal opinion, it's just jarring to look at.

I first encountered it under Five Nights at Freddy's and blacklisted that right off the bad. Glad to know a little more about how it's created so I can blacklist that, too. Filing this under the heading of #TellUsWhatYouReallyThink.

i can understand it to a degree even because some people start shit and can get better with time, but others just do it for fun and never get better at nothing on it even after a year of uploading stuff.
Sfm stuff can be more challenging to make stuff look good and you need to compensate it with the overall rules of drawings or photograph creation to make it look somewhat better. like actually making an background scenario yourself because you know the main focus will fall in the half good valley so you NEED to put effort into creating other aspects of the picture to compensate the bad side of the program itself.

fox_whisper85 said:
Blender being better is a given, but until that damn GUI is less convoluted, I refuse to us it.

Yes, Because going from 2.49 to anything past 2.5 is a pain in the tail..

..But also like anything good and worthwhile a modicum of effort is involved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6KPrc4uMw

These tutorials took me less than 15 minutes to get back to where I was with previous non-obnoxious UI. In particular I suggest his tutorial on setting up your own damned UI.

Blender's fun like that. Want it to look like and act like any other CAD/3D suite? You can.

I made this thread as more of a "where does the line get drawn on quality for bad, clippy SFM animations/ still pics", SFM animations can be good, the same way an image without good shading can be

FurryMcFuzzball said:
I made this thread as more of a "where does the line get drawn on quality for bad, clippy SFM animations/ still pics", SFM animations can be good, the same way an image without good shading can be

Hmm, that's not the vibe I'm getting here. I'm getting very few positive vibes and mostly "it sucks and looks like utter garbage" vibes from the majority of people who posted thus far. If people don't like something, they should just blacklist it. Having reasons for not liking something is one thing and is fine, but blatantly hating for the sake of hating is just stupid.

CCoyote said:
I absolutely hate it for all the reasons @ThatBIackGuy listed above. To me, it represents the epitome of bad and lazy in the world of furry artwork. In my personal opinion, it's just jarring to look at.

I first encountered it under Five Nights at Freddy's and blacklisted that right off the bad. Glad to know a little more about how it's created so I can blacklist that, too. Filing this under the heading of #TellUsWhatYouReallyThink.

Then why can't you just use the blacklist and never look at it again? That would save a lot of trouble of not having to deal with blatant hatred. I don't go around bashing a particular thing. I use a blacklist so I don't have to even see the things I don't like. Is it that hard to go to User->Settings-> Add "SFM" and click save? Please. Art is only as good as the effort put into it, no effort, bad quality; lots of effort, good quality regardless of how bad you think SFM is, etc. But whatever, there's no sense in trying to convince otherwise.

FoxFourOhFour said:
Yes, Because going from 2.49 to anything past 2.5 is a pain in the tail..

..But also like anything good and worthwhile a modicum of effort is involved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6KPrc4uMw

These tutorials took me less than 15 minutes to get back to where I was with previous non-obnoxious UI. In particular I suggest his tutorial on setting up your own damned UI.

Blender's fun like that. Want it to look like and act like any other CAD/3D suite? You can.

I never used 2.49 or 2.5, so how on earth am I supposed to know that?

Honestly I think SFM animations need harder scrutiny. I think that the layman looks at an SFM animation and is like "wow! That's so impressive! They made ALL OF THIS." They didn't. 99% of the time (there are a few creators who rip and rig models, or even create their own models from scratch) they just downloaded the models, downloaded the backdrops, and all they did is light the scene and animate. So SFM videos should be evaluated almost entirely on the quality of the lighting and the animation. That's why so many SFM animations are dark af, they just couldn't be fucked to rig up adequate lighting.

So yeah...a lot are terrible, but a lot are actually really good. Personally I have become harsher on them over the years. At first the novelty of it made it impressive, but now? SFM creators need to try because the bar has been raised and we expect more.

CCoyote said:
Did you miss the part where I said that's exactly what I do? Look, someone asked for my opinion, and I gave it. If you don't like that, you're gonna need at thicker skin to manage around here. But don't ask for someone's opinion then whine when they give it to you. That's not cool.

If you want to claim you put a lot of effort into something, then don't waste your time using bad tools. I paint watercolor: if you use crappy paint, crappy brushes, crappy paper, you're going to end up with a crappy product, no matter how much effort you put into it. In my opinion, that's true for 3D rendering, as well.

Whatever you say, I couldn't care give a rat's ass what people say is good or bad for 3D artwork. Maybe I just won't post my SFM things on e621 ever again, would that placate you sufficiently?

Teach me how to use Blender, and convince me to switch over and I'll consider it. But hey, if people are willing to go out of their way to piss on SFM art in general, that's not really my concern, they're not forced to look at it.

I don't go around criticizing or kink-shame people for using or liking certain fetishes, styles, etc. But again, whatever. If I wanted critique on SFM, I'd rather ask the guy who runs SFM Lab.

aurel said:
@Dyrone "That's why so many SFM animations are dark af, they just couldn't be fucked to rig up adequate lighting."
Setting up a bright scene is actually easier than making a dark scene. A year ago I waned to build an animation (it went to trash bin later), I specifically picked dark one, I knew it was harder, but I knew it was easier to miss modeling errors in the dark.

How so? Is there like a global lighting option or something that makes doing a light scene easier?

I would believe that dark scenes are more difficult though...that's probably why so many of them look like trash. 90% of them are too damn dark! That's my main point...

Would SFM be 3D 2D girls or 2D 3D girls?

Either way, not a fan.

Dyrone said:
How so? Is there like a global lighting option or something that makes doing a light scene easier?

I would believe that dark scenes are more difficult though...that's probably why so many of them look like trash. 90% of them are too damn dark! That's my main point...

Try to make an dark scene on a program that doesn't calculate any type of bounce light whatsoever.
The scenes can be dark because the person didn't bothered trying to make it look good in the dark. making a lighter scene is far easier because sfm was done to have that in mind because it's the fucking tf2 engine with an directors mode on just that, the light of the engine is ridiculously limited only 8 shadows is ridiculously low and you can't realistically light an char without post processing or putting at least 12 or so no shadow well placed lights on the model if you want a more "real" fell to it (light bounce,fill light, the way one light fades to the skin tone) you need to do all of that shit yourself IF you want to make something that can resemble in the most remotes of the ways what an render of blender with just 1 lamp and 3 settings on can do. This is an example of an light study's I did on sfm some weeks ago I used 13 or so lights with 5 of them having shadow.

https://bit.ly/2KFeYaa

It can look "okey" but it was a hell to know where should the lights be what the bounce color should be and the range/falloff of the colors themselves.

There are a ton of pre made light kits for people to download to just have an already optimized and good looking light, but loosing the function of editing it further beyond the light color. People don't try to search for it only that.
About the 90% dark scenes there, it's because:
1-who tries to do it is a newcomer and really don't fucking know how light should work.
2-its sfm it's hard to make the AO of the program to look good and most people just push everything up and make shit as dark as possible with it.
Or 3-its also hard as fuck to do an dark scene to be as visible as possible and also look and feel like it's a dark place on a program as fucking limited as sfm.
But mostly 1 and 2 fits really well with newcomers overall of the program.

aurel said:
Oh hey, since its going for so long, we may well take a moment to appreciate the flame war that happened 2 years ago.

https://e621.net/forum/show/164669
https://e621.net/forum/show/163887

Read through it, history is essential to understanding today.

Again, the point has to be made. It is not SFM, it is the models. The ability to download a model encourages this lazy behavior. We could train fox in blender, but then he could just carry on posing the same models and, due the complexity of blender, come out with worse result. Blender suffers from the same fault as SFM, just fox keeps derailing it towards SFM hate. ... Also, who elected fox into supreme soviet of SFM users anyway?

If people demand increase in minimal standards, how far do we want to go? If we were to say that SFM models are below the standard and only accept original models, such as H0rs3 and Ashnar do, it would very much cripple the rate at which these are posted. Modeling takes an immense amount of time.

@Dyrone "That's why so many SFM animations are dark af, they just couldn't be fucked to rig up adequate lighting."
Setting up a bright scene is actually easier than making a dark scene. A year ago I waned to build an animation (it went to trash bin later), I specifically picked dark one, I knew it was harder, but I knew it was easier to miss modeling errors in the dark.

It is the model????
M8 half of the fucking library is from other games and engines the textures weren't made to work especifically with tf2 style the models weren't made with tf2 style on mind.
It is not sfm ITS THE FUCKING PERSON WHO PLAYS WITH IT, putting the blame on the model just because it wasn't made for sfm in mind it's childish a fuckton of people over deviant art/Tumblr/steam itself are able to do wonderful work with realistic models ported from BF1,Wolfenstein or Tomb Raider as an example.
Even the models done just for sfm still have work to be done because the people who did it are learning how to make it look better just for sfm lightning, look at warfare machine models compare the 2 renamons he did and the 2 Krystal's he did, nowdays they look far better because the guy learned more stuff on how to make them look better for the engine instead of just forcing stuff that wasn't made for the engine.
>>The ability to download a model encourages this lazy behavior.
So you just contradicted yourself there??because the lazy behavior is of the person not the model, the model is just that a prop nothing more.