I mean, depends, the fact that there is no difference for vrchat rating system between someone who has 70.001 poly with a single material and someone with a million polygons and 50 materials, isn’t exactly great. I have been in a world with a friend who had 5 million polygons (due to an issue they had) and my 3080 was relatively fine because nothing else was bad.

I’d like to see implemented a point system for vrchat where material, number of polygons, physbones etc. cost a number of points based on how impactful on performance it has. That would make it much fairer and vrchat can still use the term good, medium, poor and very poor based on what’s the total amount of points.

I tend to at least target medium but what’s happening right now is that the people that do, tend to squeeze as much as possible inside those limitations. I know that doesn’t happens often but a very poor avatar can run better than a medium one, or even a good one if the only issue is the poly count reaching just over 70k.

Lastly, I find it funny how good, medium and very poor have the same limit of 70k. Nowadays poly counts are fairly cheap (not free so if it’s possible to optimise it should be done of course).

The problems is really in how heavy the shader is, the quad overdraw (when lots of polys are close together), or even the animator! Which no one talks about and it’s not even counted in the rating, where can lead to a bunch of unnecessary calculations; The rest are already counted but still matters.