Comments

Blacklisted
    Show Search Options
    post #184158
    86 99 5 E

    На самом деле это офигенный концепт для секс-андроида, особенно если живот сделать мягким, как, собственно, человеческий живот.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184375
    22 18 2 E
    post #184291
    16 13 2 S
    post #184388
    13 12 3 E
    post #184385
    16 10 1 E

    I know what you're thinking, but I won't tell anyone~

    That dino chicken nuggets are the best chicken nuggets? I don’t mind if you tell.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184392
    5 1 1 S
    post #184375
    22 18 2 E
    post #184336
    54 82 1 E
    post #184388
    13 12 3 E
    post #184367
    31 33 3 E
    post #184388
    13 12 3 E
    post #184366
    26 28 2 E

    nerothunderfox said:
    Is it possible to see the last picture somewhere else?

    That would be awesome if so X3

    Unfortunately not. There was an imgbox, but it's gone now. Linking it would be against da rules anyway I assume, otherwise I could just post a catbox link in the description. Already asked about uploading it here with the babies censored like a japanese vagina, nope.

    I quite like the picture, but it's nothing impressive and you're not missing much that's not in the description. Kinda ruins the breast_envy conclusion tho

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184159
    42 76 1 E
    post #184366
    26 28 2 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    Wow did not expect such a spirited discussion! Please be respectful either way, I’m not trying to steer the conversation in any direction I just thought the comic was funny so I posted it here

  • |
  • 1
  • post #183644
    115 178 4 E

    underwolf69 said:
    More than anything else in this gen it's the motion of that TAIL that captivates. Was that something the generator did on its own or was it prompted?
    Because it's seductive as hell.

    Nope, i only really use grok imagine and kinda force it to make stuff like that. This gen took about 7-8ish tries, but some get through the moderation on the first go. I asked for:

    a sexy naked anthro female cat, sitting seductively on a couch inviting the viewer. +18, nsfw, furry animation style.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    A do wonder if the quality demands -not guidelines- are for future throwing up a paywall on part of the site.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184367
    31 33 3 E
    post #184291
    16 13 2 S
    post #184347
    65 69 4 E
    post #184367
    31 33 3 E

    If that is a shooting star, I think this guy's wish has already come true

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184360
    10 6 1 S
    post #183769
    220 345 2 E

    the wrinkles of cloth the moist fat red cock, and the strings of precum as lubricant... oh my god this is peak.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #183785
    21 10 2 S
    post #184362
    32 33 2 Q
    post #184362
    32 33 2 Q

    Enjoy youth while it lasts flora, You will get there soon enough :P

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184357
    31 42 1 Q
    post #184358
    27 21 3 S

    Awww that has to be the gen that has given me the biggest smile of the day. so wonderfully cute 🥰

  • |
  • 3
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    lor7n said:
    I admit this was my mistake. I didn’t look carefully enough, and I only noticed it after the post had already been deleted. I apologize for that. However, the finger count mismatch is indeed an obvious issue. Though perhaps I shouldn’t be discussing deletion decisions here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    It's no big deal; I'm not offended.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #100728
    107 297 2 E
    post #184183
    127 180 4 E
    post #184325
    43 46 1 Q
    post #184088
    106 154 1 E
    post #184068
    154 221 3 E

    Amazing. Love the outfit, the pose, and the character design. Hope to see more of them in the future!

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    foxlover78982 said:
    I totally get where you're coming from. Recently, one of my images was removed, and one of the reasons given was that the character was missing a left ear. But the ear was actually there—it just blended in a bit with the color of the hair.
    But I'm too lazy to even argue about these things anymore.

    I admit this was my mistake. I didn’t look carefully enough, and I only noticed it after the post had already been deleted. I apologize for that. However, the finger count mismatch is indeed an obvious issue. Though perhaps I shouldn’t be discussing deletion decisions here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184358
    27 21 3 S

    You've perfectly captured the canine in all it's natural grace and wonder.

    Excellent job! ^^

  • |
  • 4
  • post #184183
    127 180 4 E
    post #184290
    30 41 3 E
    post #184356
    49 43 1 E
    post #181956
    108 160 3 E
    post #184322
    58 67 2 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    I totally get where you're coming from. Recently, one of my images was removed, and one of the reasons given was that the character was missing a left ear. But the ear was actually there—it just blended in a bit with the color of the hair.
    But I'm too lazy to even argue about these things anymore.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184358
    27 21 3 S
    post #182556
    63 84 1 Q
    post #184331
    32 40 2 Q
    post #184318
    95 128 3 E

    Why spend the energy chasing your prey when all you need to do is lay there looking gorgeous and delicious?

  • |
  • 2
  • post #184269
    34 54 6 E

    n_n said:
    All appreciated :P

    As are all the comments, compliments and inspirations from you and everyone who’s been keeping up with the comic so far! Cannot thank you enough! ❤️

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184290
    30 41 3 E
    post #184312
    75 96 1 E
    post #184289
    44 53 2 E
    post #184269
    34 54 6 E

    ducksiri said:
    I may be drawing it out, but I wanna make up for all the story and lore I put in the beginning!

    All appreciated :P

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184354
    35 52 1 E
    post #184195
    102 153 1 E
    post #184347
    65 69 4 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    lizzyroo said:
    I think we need something like e6ai2 where quality guidelines are bit more well relaxed, well thats just me.
    IE if eye is slightly messed up, thats fine, if bit blurry, thats fine.
    Where images aren't 100% perfect like it needs to be on e6ai.
    This is where e6ai2 comes in, where images aren't 100% perfect, but people want to post them. perhaps others can comment on it and give tips and helpful suggestion

    *this is also my bad apparently I did a Report and did Not read I was doing a Report. I am Truly Sorry.

    You should checkout the Discord then. We have a gen sharing channel where we don't enforce quality guidelines. We also have channels for getting feedback on WIPs and asking for help. Some users post more often-or even exclusively-on Discord.

  • |
  • 6
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    I appreciate the high quality standards, even if they are frustrating at times. I've had my fair share of submissions deleted, some several times for new errors one after another.
    See this image above and other cartoony images can be sloppy, aside from apparent anatomical anomalies. It's part of being cartoony. But in more realistic images, as I and many others try to make, a little slop is much more apparent and ruins the image. I don't know, it's a difficult line to draw. Maybe drop the demands by about 10%, then again maybe it's good with demands of perfection the way it is, even if it is frustrating.

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    lizzyroo said:
    ok lets get the Magnifying glass out and see if it is a Pass.

    Better not or you'll the the jpg artifacts 💀
    (Which is easily fixable by 1:1 upscaling it and then saving it as a png)

  • |
  • 3
  • post #184335
    53 51 1 E
    post #184326
    37 42 1 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    Inpainting is your friend. All these little sloppy bits can be easily corrected with a bit of inpainting. And, in my experience, the janitors are quite forgiving with backgrounds, because the ai is still not there yet. Unless it's a glaring problem like the horizon line not matching up on both sides of a character, which happened to me, and I fixed in about 10 minutes with some quick inpainting and the picture was validated.

  • |
  • 5
  • post #184300
    22 24 2 Q
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    drla said:
    Posts approved before the current quality guidelined are allowed to stay. Otherwise we'd have to pretty much delete everything from the first two years of the site...

    I think we need something like e6ai2 where quality guidelines are bit more well relaxed, well thats just me.
    IE if eye is slightly messed up, thats fine, if bit blurry, thats fine.
    Where images aren't 100% perfect like it needs to be on e6ai.
    This is where e6ai2 comes in, where images aren't 100% perfect, but people want to post them. perhaps others can comment on it and give tips and helpful suggestion

    *this is also my bad apparently I did a Report and did Not read I was doing a Report. I am Truly Sorry.

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184205
    73 99 5 Q
    post #184269
    34 54 6 E

    n_n said:
    Too true

    I may be drawing it out, but I wanna make up for all the story and lore I put in the beginning!

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184202
    46 73 3 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    n_n said:
    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

    Whether people are using local models or not, the quality of gens has been improving pretty significantly over time. We’d also like to see people make use of those improvements to create better and more creative work.

    A lot of those older posts were approved because they represented the level of quality that was achievable at the time. Standards change as the tools improve. If we applied today’s standards to everything that was posted two years ago, I imagine going back and deleting all of it would be quite a massive undertaking

  • |
  • 5
  • post #184185
    69 108 1 E
    post #184189
    43 54 3 Q
    post #183694
    74 124 4 E
    post #184176
    29 44 2 E
    post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    n_n said:
    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

    Posts approved before the current quality guidelined are allowed to stay. Otherwise we'd have to pretty much delete everything from the first two years of the site...

  • |
  • 7
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    That tooth line is a bit thick on the front... could be dental abnormality. And that dot between the tail and body, possible artifact!

  • |
  • 3
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

  • |
  • 0
  • post #184348
    36 20 21 S

    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

  • |
  • 10