> Quote - This is what I call poly edge flow. > > This is what I call poly distribution. > > LauriA, I can hardly believe you like her as she has : > > In grand total. > Including taxes. > The whole of exactly **6.300** poly's.

its far too low poly for rendering work.

vilters, answer a question for me....

V1 and V2 were 30,000 polys and were released in 1999 and 2001 respectively.
V3 is 75,000 polys and was released in 2003.

most of us in that era were on slowass single-core CPUs not even reaching 1 gigaflop, with 128mb of RAM - 192 or 256 if we were lucky.

we are now sitting on quad, six and eight-core 64-bit processors that would qualify as supercomputers in the Vicky 1 era.  ive seen 16GB of DDR3 for $65 shipped.  4GB is pretty much the min. standard nowadays. i can squeeze over 70 gigaflops out of my overclocked Phenom II X6 and many would consider it a budget processor.

drumroll
so.. heres the million dollar question...

why on earth would i suddenly want a 6000 polygon figure in 2012, when i have 50x the processing power and memory i had back when i was rendering 30-75k poly figures without incident?

and whats the point of struggling with a pathetically low-poly figure to try and fake detail via hi-res textures and displacement maps when it would likely use lower resources to just up the polycount of the base mesh instead?

i understand your passion is low-res figures. and thats great:  low-poly modeling is an art in itself. but campaigning for us all to move to sub 15k poly figures in 2012 when weve been rendering 75k poly base figures for a decade on much slower hardware is absurd.  not to mention most clothing modelers dont even care about polycount or mesh optimization at all. what is the point of a 6k poly base mesh when youre loading 200-300k polys of clothing onto it?

i follow what you are doing with interest, and respect what you do, however you need to realize that you are way way out on the fringes with this ultra-low-poly obsession of yours :)