PBR honored, LOD not?

Thread closed, LOD is present on CGT in same ammount as PBR is.
Only difference is, CGT is displaying "lowpoly" and "PBR", and this in an truly arbitrarily manner (Look at the "0 polycount" taggers and you know what I mean), and even not "LOD" since they think like PhantomG does. It´s how it is and it´s no problem at all for me, since I´m expert on loding like tons of realtime artists here on CGT are as well, hence we cook our own soup and will be happy anyway XD. Greats! & thanks for the (non existing...) interest on behalf of LEVEL OF DETAIL modeling... still one of the most important things in the 3d business for realtime applications with NO end in sight. Kind regards to all REAL & professional developers.

I see LOD on CGT :-) :-) after a loooooooooong research within low-poly assets.

However, without a.... "tag" and tiny text as "PBR" and "Lowpoly"............. on the preview images in serach results. ==== U.N.F.F.A.I.R.

Even if, most so claimed "low-polys" on cgt displayed in serach results, aren´t lowpolys at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!! XD.

Hence, this thread is more than of value, take it how you want and like.

But hey, no problem, than we put our BIG & FAT ------- "LOD" text on the preview image by ourself, no issues cgt.

@ PhantomG
he train has departed. You was wrong.

Hey that´s a great summary point Mantas-Talmantas! Thanks for participating!
I agree on your summary but I´ve got one comment; The "solid standards" issue. Let´s be honest here, and analyze it a bit harder:
if we have an (true, not pseudo) low-poly airplane with LOD 0 = 3500 tris, and Shade (LOD 4 = 300 tris) - how much "margin" do we have for LOD 1, LOD 2, and LOD 3? not much. So, I don´t believe that creating LOD 1 with 75% instead of 70% will cause an drawcall overhead, because it has 100 triangles to much! and even if so, we are already good to go having the 3500, 2000, 1000, 600 and 300 of having ONLY...... the 3500, viewing on a bigger scaled game with hundreds if not thousands of objects.

very interesting discussion. sins iam not directly working with game engines but i do sell models, i do care about the discussion.
So as far as i understand we have 3 topics / ideas here:

1. we need (or not) a way to show LODs in cg trader as a tag when searching for models
2. game devs dont care about LODs in bought models sins there are no solid standards and each project will require dif. LODs there fore there is no point in providing them
3.indie game devs will enjoy LODs cos they dont have budget / time to create them and they would use whatever comes in sold model.

any thoughts from game devs?

"If I buy your model and try to use it as is, my performance target won't be met " - You think ways tooooo professional, and less cutomer oriented in regards to CGT, at least as I got you. Offering LODs on CGTcould be a ---voluntary---- solution for indie devs or small scaled devs with a tight time budget, and don´t target professional development departments with big pockets and without time critical projects.
Hence, you´re adressing your concerns to the wrong target group as end buyers. Of course, professional developers DYI, but there´re for sure end buyers who would appreciate it because they don´t have a plan "how to" or run out of time. As you´ve mentioned already, "50%, 25%" manually decompressed and manually triangulated is all along like heaven and hell compared with what engines are able to do with LODing. So what do you lose? not to meet the ultimate performance targets? as I wrote, having some out of the box - and not havin them, what would I buy? guess what. However, I see the matter is too tough for this forum, maybe you´re right, maybe I am.

Right, I agree, "LOD is "extra"!, and that´s why it has to be displayed as extra on thumbnails. I would also say PBR is also extra, because you don´t need it for models for offline rendering.
I worked on Microsoft Flight Simulator Xseries, some other triple A, and for some other big players, and for a company that develops realtime applications for flight simulators for pilots and air traffic controllers, so I know a lot how level of detail modeling works. Mostly it´s a requirement specified by the tech team, that knows the engine. However, you can be sure that having 4-5 LOD´s of an airplane for a realtime app is already better with a "conventional and typical polycount for LODs 0-4" and you get faster framerates wothout any extra overhead. Otherwise engine renders always LOD 0 no matter if the object is displayed almost like a dot or if it is right in your face. So, I don´t agree with you, having some carefully done LODs for outdoor maps out of the box within a realtime model you buy, is a nice thing to have.

LOD isn't a fix thing, a lot of things needs to be get into account when creating LODs, LODs aren't just simple polygon "shaving". Every real time engine interprets LODs differently, some doesn't use LODs at all (CSR2 racing game for example) some use only single LOD (Gran Turismo 6)etc. Steps, number of them at which LODs are done and how they are done make a huge difference between target optimization hit or miss, it's not the same when LOD1 is 75-80% of the main model or when is 50%. Sometimes LOD is just optimized half side of a model. LOD is "extra" that buyer needs to do by him/herself or ask author of the model to do it (consider it as a separate job because stock 3d models are ''Sold As-Is''). In my opinion, premade LODs are waist of time if you don't know exactly how and on which platform model will be used.