anyone can pose stuff in vrchat and in SFM, and you can download tools to do exactly that in many other games, so why does vrchat get a pass but if I upload a professionally composed skyrim screenshot it gets removed?

seems a bit biased/unfair.

I get that a lot of people will start uploading more screenshots and that adds to moderator/approval queue but that also still means that vrchat is getting special treatment.

VRchat screenshots aren't allowed either. But the deletions seem to be inconsistent.

moonlit-comet said:
VRchat screenshots aren't allowed either. But the deletions seem to be inconsistent.

There's a difference between screenshots and renders

donovan_dmc said:
There's a difference between screenshots and renders

Fair enough! Wasn't aware you could actually render images in VRchat.

do you have any actual examples you want to share with the class

I've thought for a long time (at least since topic #37319) that the anti-screencap guidelines date back to a time when people would just upload garbage quality 1024*768 screenshots of their Garry's Mod character having sex with a ragdoll. The quality difference between "render" and "screencap" has become increasingly close over time, and the "more effort goes into a render" argument doesn't really hold up when you can just throw together pre-made assets in SFM. Like SFM, many modern Second Life viewers allow for custom posing the models, advanced camera controls like focal length and DoF, putting together a scene, adding light sources, etc. I know there's plenty of mods for games like Skyrim that add this sort of functionality too.

Posts like post #4554364 get an exemption because the creator made the model. If anybody else did this, it would get rejected, despite the effort that went into it and the resulting quality.

Just posing a prefab model to stand upright with a prefab background and default lighting in SFM is fine however, purely because it's a render, and not a screencap. I used post #3862655 as an example in a previous topic, and no offense to the creator, it summarises my point quite perfectly. Rather than basing decisions on composition, original creativity or quality of the end result, the difference between a screencap and render effectively comes down to one thing - how intensive it was on your GPU.

faucet said:
I've thought for a long time (at least since topic #37319) that the anti-screencap guidelines date back to a time when people would just upload garbage quality 1024*768 screenshots of their Garry's Mod character having sex with a ragdoll. The quality difference between "render" and "screencap" has become increasingly close over time, and the "more effort goes into a render" argument doesn't really hold up when you can just throw together pre-made assets in SFM. Like SFM, many modern Second Life viewers allow for custom posing the models, advanced camera controls like focal length and DoF, putting together a scene, adding light sources, etc. I know there's plenty of mods for games like Skyrim that add this sort of functionality too.

Posts like post #4554364 get an exemption because the creator made the model. If anybody else did this, it would get rejected, despite the effort that went into it and the resulting quality.

Just posing a prefab model to stand upright with a prefab background and default lighting in SFM is fine however, purely because it's a render, and not a screencap. I used post #3862655 as an example in a previous topic, and no offense to the creator, it summarises my point quite perfectly. Rather than basing decisions on composition, original creativity or quality of the end result, the difference between a screencap and render effectively comes down to one thing - how intensive it was on your GPU.

that second example really does sell your point for me