So, I faced many issues with the guideline where you will face conflict with the marketplace QA & production pipeline. Now I haven't complied the entire list, but one of the guidelines that has bothered me a lot. That is Centered geometry.
Now in case of Modular assets, in many cases you would rather want your pivot point to be placed at the bottom corner of your model not at the center. This rule there creates an issue with models rating, but users will expect the modules to snap accordingly. To let that happen it gets hard to follow the guideline of CGTrader.
There are many other cases like this where a blanket rules like this hurt a lot. One of the rule is watertight mesh. Now for 3D printing it makes sense, but regarding game assets in many cases you would rather have the polygons removed that are at the back/bottom and not showing up for optimization's sake.
These are two of the rules that have caused me a lot of issues. I am saying because even though my model was made following the industry production rules, it faces issues with CGTraders QA guidelines.
Those are generic guidelines which you are recommended, but not required to follow. If your model requires pivot to be placed at specific location, then you do that and nobody will go mad if that doesn't exactly fit some arbitrary rule. I don't see how making the model to be logically constructed and not following cookie cuter rules "hurts a lot".
You mention that the issue of the pivot placement creates a problem with model rating. Is this mentioned somewhere also, or is this something you inferred? I've never experienced a penalty for this or non-watertight meshes that were listed as low poly or game-ready meshes. Of course, all 3d printable meshes need to be watertight, but I don't see where anyone is penalized in the ratings if the models are listed as game-ready or low poly.
In order to post an answer, you need to sign in.
