Quality Bar

As we improve our tool, inevitably the quality bar rises in order for the assets to remain on the Gallery long-term (especially now that we have higher resolutions available). A good rule of thumb when considering whether a texture is likely to be accepted is if they’re relatively comparable to assets you’d find in other marketplaces, or if you think designers would be happy to fully utilize the texture in their project. Typically this just comes down to the photorealism, patch scaling, alignment, broad utility and PBR detail of the material — but there isn’t a science to it. We trust your judgement and experience as 3D designers and texture artists to determine what’s suitable for fellow designers. If you think we’ve rejected a texture that should have been approved, change the review status back to “Not reviewed” so we can take another look, or send us a message

Example considerations on what does and doesn’t meet the quality bar:

Quality Considerations

Reviewed Textures

We’ve communicated this individually with all of you, but to clarify; we were doing an overall review of all previously accepted textures, including checking all the PBR maps to ensure that they're fully usable. Unfortunately it turns out that the maps for most of the patterned fabric or tiled textures don’t meet that quality bar — we weren’t able to review these maps until we’ve fully uploaded them to the Gallery, and subsequently had to take most of them back down. This is of no fault of your own as you’ve been following the Textures Request list, and we'll also continue to update the list moving forward to recommend materials our tool will be better at (e.g. many of the wood, marble, plaster, etc. materials you’ve created all in the past few days are fantastic). Regardless, rest assured that we will pay for all the ones previously marked with "accepted"!

Most of the preview images for many of these patterned fabrics and tiles looked great — but when we get to the PBR maps, they begin to lose detail

In general anything patterned or symmetrical is difficult to do well in our tool — the depth and shadow information in the PBR maps tend to vary in different areas, and undesirable artifacts are often introduced

It’s a tall ask and we don’t expect them to be perfect — but the goal is to get as close to the quality of typical procedurally generated maps

Other considerations when approving textures

• As often as possible prioritize the materials Poly is better at generating, and don’t rely on Image to Texture for over 40% of your textures. We discourage uploading sets of images for any category from the same source or existing library (e.g. 10+ stone variations from the same website)
• For exact same materials being configured in sets of tiled patterns (e.g. 2x4, 4x4, 8x4, etc.) or the exact same prompt with similar results being used repeatedly (e.g. 5 similar white Calacatta Marble textures) — we will only take the best result
• We encourage color variations of similar materials, but don’t rely too heavily on this for quick acceptances

Upload process changes

• Firstly, for those of you who are still uploading screenshots of the in-editor 3D viewer, please use the preview render image from the library instead

• Moving forward, a section has been added on your Notion creator pages to add a screenshot of the bottom dock showing the maps for each texture — this will help us avoid needing to review again after they’ve been approved and added to the site. A screenshot of the render map and PBR maps would be helpful. Example:

  FvLJKAvumj

  

• We’d also like for you to upscale all textures to 4K resolution moving forward