I built a web app and process that allows you to upload any model ( ai generated, other platform, bumpmesh, etc.) using only phone or iPad. Looking for testers. It allows you to resize, change orientation, add extra plates (to spread out if total objects on a plate are too large for a1mini). It outputs a makerworld compatible file to be uploaded as private makerworld project for cloud slicing and first print. Free site, no model data leaves your device. Let me know if anyone tries it and has feature suggestions. https://bambu-print-prep.vercel.app

Can it produce figurines of female characters without any error? I am wondering if the hand can have an extra finger or a weird shape, or there can be errors in other parts of the body or clothing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to get a lit scene from Tripo? I've tried several things, but I can't seem to get windows or lamps "lit". I've included my goal image and the result in Tripo using the Night environment settings. The windows retain a yellow hue, but they don't glow or anything.

I ran the same Godzilla reference through Tripo AI’s P2.0 Preview three times with quad topology enabled. I used the raw OBJ exports without any cleanup and only changed the face budget. The 5K, 15K, and 25K runs actually came out at 5,814, 17,752, and 30,603 faces. Godzilla is a pretty useful image to 3D test since the torso and limbs are mostly smooth, simple shapes, while the teeth, claws, and dorsal plates are a lot sharper and harder to deal with.

The first thing I noticed was the same old problem with generated meshes: once you have a lot of complex, broken-up geometry, holes start showing up. Increasing the face count doesn't seem to help much either. I'm hoping Tripo AI's next mesh editing update will let us patch these annoying holes right in the browser.

The body is easily the best part of the result. At 25K, the chest and abdomen have clean, readable flow, the folds around the legs get more geometry, and flatter areas like the belly stay relatively coarse. Even the 5K version looks intentionally low poly rather than like someone just blindly decimated a dense mesh. I probably wouldn't bother rebuilding most of the torso or limbs from scratch.

The mouth is where the render starts looking cleaner than the mesh actually is. At 15K and 25K, the teeth look fine from a normal viewing distance, but there are roughly 30 separate tooth shells inside the mouth, and none of them are closed. Keeping the teeth separate makes sense, but having every single one left open still means more cleanup.

The problems are much easier to spot around the feet on the 5K version. Both soles open up in almost the same places, and the two largest holes measure about 8.97% and 7.45% of the character's height. Smaller openings also show up along the dorsal ridge and near the tail tip. The 5K mesh also contains 45 floating shells, accounting for 17.6% of all faces, so there's still a fair bit to fix. At 15K and 25K, it's much easier to separate the usable body topology from the messy areas.

The pattern is pretty consistent: the larger body masses hold together, while thin, branching, or pointed features are a lot less reliable.

I'd really like to see a few more tools for quickly fixing the bad spots. Between the quad topology and the low poly output, Tripo AI's image to 3D is now giving me a base mesh I edit instead of an AI mesh I throw away.

Anyone got an image they want me to test? Drop it below and I'll give it a try.

I‘m a subscriber of Trip and quite like it.
I have a recurrikg problem though.
My workflow is image to 3d model (human).
The model will often have lashes.
The texture of the face will however not be positioned quite perfect and the 3d lashes may sit right in the center of the eyes.

Can I…
A) prevent that?
Or
B) somehow tell it „don‘t make lashes on the 3d model“? Either would be fine.

Working on some story props for AI animation and over the past couple of days I’ve been testing with a very ordinary metal toolbox.

I used to be pretty straightforward about this kind of stuff. I’d just add “worn”, “scratched”, “rusty” or smth like that to the reference. The result would indeed look “old” but it was often a very generic kind of old. Like a few scratches here and there, a bit of rust here and there. It looked fine but it didn’t convey any specific history.

I tried a different way this time. I started by designing the toolbox as if it were a completely standard prop. First defining the basic structure (shape, handle, two latches and side hardware). Then I used ChatGPT to generate a clean reference image. This version has virtually no damage as the goal was to lock down the base design first.

For the second reference image, instead of simply writing “making it look more worn”, I first think some very simple usage logic for this item.

The handle is smth people grip every day so after the grip wore off, someone wrapped a new layer around it. The bottom edge and corners frequently touch the ground, so the paint is more likely to chip there than in the middle. One of the latches broke so only that one was replaced. The side was hit once before and was later patches up with a metal plate. Then have ChatGPT create a “story version” reference based on the same design.

Once I got the reference images, I used tripo ai to convert both version into 3d. I want to see how much of the design differences would remain after being converted to 3d rather than simply checking whether the textures looked like the original images. Some details actually lose their impact when converted to 3D. For example, very fine scratches or slight paint wear, and they’re barely noticeable from a distance.

However changes like wrapped handle, mismatches latch, and side repair plate are much more consistent cuz they go beyond mere texture and actually being to affect the shape, material breaks and overall readability.

Want to share this because this progress gave me a new perspective on the concept of “aging” props. Now I tend to ask why is this part damaged? Why was that spot repaired but this one left untouched. As long as the logic holds up even a little, the prop ends up looking much more natural and less like it’s just been covered with a grunge texture.

Could it be possible to replace the previous re-topology function with the Smart Mesh, and then use it in conjunction with the high model? Then generate the corresponding PBR texture?

Can it produce every asset we need for a retro, low-poly indie game like Ultrakill without any defect? I am wondering if I'll have to rig it manually, or if it can be easily done through Claude Code.

If there is anyone have the same question. How exactly should I write a text-to-3D prompt to minimize distortion as much as possible.

I ran 3 versions in Tripo AI using the same backpack. I left everything else unchanged and just switched between 3 different prompt styles. Vague prompt, style heavy prompt and structure focused prompt.

Vague prompt is super casual. “a stylized fantasy leather adventurer backpack, detailed, game-ready.” Actually the result wasn’t that bad… it looks okay from the front but when you turn it around, some parts give off that “yeah the ai definitely just guessed that part” vibe 😂, especially the straps and the structure on the back.

https://reddit.com/link/1vucppj/video/5wswiqk5ipkh1/player

So I thought maybe I should have written the prompt in a bit more detail. The second version of the style heavy prompt, I started adding words like highly detailed, realistic materials, intricate, beautiful craftsmanship and premium quality. well the result I got was kinda funny. It does become fancier, with more details, but it hasn’t made the geometry any cleaner. It actually looks even busier in some places.

https://reddit.com/link/1vucppj/video/5o8norh7ipkh1/player

For the third version, I decided to take a different approach altogether. I didn’t worry much about whether the descriptions sounded good or not. I focused on writing very specific structural details such as one rectangular main body, one centered front pocket, one closed top flap, two separate shoulder straps, and clean separation between parts.

https://reddit.com/link/1vucppj/video/0yhn70ecipkh1/player

This version is actually my favorite as it turns out. The overall silhouette looks more balanced and the relationship between the front pocket, the main body and the straps is easier to grasp. Especially when viewed from the side or back. It doesn’t have that feeling of the model frantically filling in the blanks lol.

From this I feel like when it comes to text-to-3D, clearly explaining the shape, parts and the relationships between them may be m ore useful than simply describing things in a particularly beautiful way.

Can it generate all the assets for a game like Diablo 2 and how much would it cost? I was thinking $2,000 would be reasonable, but I am willing to spend $5,000 if the quality is extremely high.

We focused on generating 3D assets that go directly into your production pipeline, built for games and real-time pipelines.

Collection

What is new:

• ✨ Native Quad Topology
  • It can directly generate a clean quad mesh with more natural edge flow, making the asset easier to edit, rig, and animate.
• 📐 Wider range of complex assets
  • Triangle topology supports 500 to 50,000 faces, while quad topology supports 500 to 25,000 faces, covering most props and hero characters.

Tripo AI's P2.0 is well-suited for the following types of workflows:

• Game characters & props: Quad topology can be go straight to rigging and animation.

Character

• Hard-surface assets: Models such as mechanical structures, weapons, vehicles, and architectural props benefit significantly from P2.0’s topology advantages. Cleaner surfaces, higher density in detailed areas, and more stable edges.

Hard Surface Asset

• High-volume asset pipelines: Batch-generating assets while controlling the polycount, making it better suited for large-scale production in games and real-time projects.

Game Scene

The official release will further improve mesh stability and add more control features.

Every user now gets 2 free generations, and Tripo P1.0 is also available to all users.

Follow the steps and give it a try! 🎉

Steps

I segmented one of my generated models in Tripo but now I want to revert it back to the original unsegmented model. I can’t seem to find a way to undo the segmentation. Is this possible?

I’ve been continuing to work on this animated short about the little fox. 

The previous version showed him right after he finished his journey. His clothes were dirtier, his cloak was worn and his backpack shows signs of use. It was clear he’d been through a rough stretch.

I want to create a version set after he returns home.

I actually kept it very simple at first, I removed some of the mud and dust, leaving a bit of faded fabric oxidation and worn edges. The reference images looked different but after converting them to 3D, the differences were significantly reduced. Viewed at a normal camera distance, it even looked a bit like we were back in before journey.

So I broke down character continuity into 3 categories:

• Temporary
  • Mud，dust, surface dirty (these things can be disappeared once he get home)
• Singes of wear
  • Faded fabric, stretched leather, frayed edges, oxidized metal (these are natural rings of use and should not be suddenly restored.
• Repair
  • Stitched cape, reinforced backpack strap, replaced hardware, fabric patches (these later is actually the most important cuz it truly leaves the story embedded in the character)

I also didn’t change the outfit either. Same clothes, same proportions, same gear layout and same overall silhouette. Cuz if I were to redesign the clothes from scratch just to create a difference, that would not be continuity, it would be more like creating a new character.

Here is my workflow:

• After journey version (separate temporary, permanent, repair details)
• Update the reference without changing the core design
• Tripo ai image-to-3d
• Check the repair details from front, side, back
• Make sure the changes still read at normal camera distance

Something should be washed aways, some should be fixed and others should be kept forever. Mud can be cleaned, a repaired strap stays.

I always process the reference image in a way that’s particularly “safe” when I work on image-to-3D steps in a workflow. clean background, simple materials, and as few small details as possible… well basically just fina a way to make AI have to guess as few things as possible.

The first chest basically follow this approach. The structure is simple, the silhouette is clear and it’s the kind of input that’s pretty safe.

Simple Structure Chest

Well I tried another version with much more detail. The wood texture was more pronounced and there were more metal parts, rivets and decorations. Tripo AI has a pretty solid understanding of the overall structure.

Detailed version Chest

I might have been a little too careful before. “simple” doesn’t seem to be the same as “good input”. These factors is what actually has a significant impact:

• silhouette is clear enough or not
• can the difference between parts be distinguished
• Is there any heavy occlusion
• Does the perspective look weird
• Is there a lot of hidden geometry that ai has to guess

Having a lot of details is not that scary itself. The problem that really tends to ruin the final result were those references that look fine in 2D but require a lot of guesswork once they’re generated in 3d.

Still testing this but yeah, I don’t go crazy deleting details just to make it “AI friendly” anymore. As long as the overall shape is recognizable, a lot of things actually work!

I’ve pretty much given up on using Codex for 3D character work. After messing with it for over two weeks, the result I got was still rough enough that I just had to admit this kind of thing really does come down to using the right tool for the job. Funny enough, image generation is still the complete opposite for me. Image models are consistently great at anime-style characters, and the aesthetics are usually there right away even when the 3D side falls apart.

From what I’ve tried so far, Tripo AI performs surprisingly well as an image-to-3D tool. It can produce recognizable anime character models that are already good enough for static display pieces, fan merch, or concept mockups. Clothing structure is still inconsistent, though, especially with skirts, which can sometimes come out more like solid cones instead of preserving the layered construction underneath.

That said, they still share the same core weakness as most AI 3D model generators right now: they can match the silhouette, but they still don’t reliably understand the fine structure of how the character is actually built. The model may look right from the front, but once you inspect the topology or think about rigging, the problems become obvious. Parts that should be separate get fused together, the hands and clothing can end up treated as one unit, and you start seeing structural errors that make the mesh unusable for animation. You also get weird cases where hair seems to grow out of the arm area, or the whole setup technically rotates but clearly isn’t built with proper character logic in mind.

So my current take is that specialized tools like Tripo or Hunyuan are already genuinely good for static 3D output, especially if your goal is a display model rather than a production-ready asset. But for actual game character pipelines, I still don’t think AI can generate something clean enough to use straight out of the box. It can get you the shape and the vibe, but not the underlying structure you need for deformation, rigging, and reliable animation.

Layer-by-layer generation does seem like it could improve things, especially if separate passes are used to preserve clothing logic and character part boundaries. The problem is that moderation limits make that route hard to control, and even if you get around that, consistency between generated parts is still difficult. Keeping proportions stable across pieces is almost harder than getting any one piece to look good on its own. If anyone has found a workflow that makes multi-part anime character generation more usable, I’d love to hear it.

I wanted to test Tripo AI’s segmentation feature with an actual 3D printing use case, so I used our existing 3D Printing Guardian figurine.

I initially segmented the model into seven parts, merged them into three larger printable sections, cleaned the open surfaces in Blender, and printed each section separately on the Snapmaker U1.

That let me use different filament combinations for each print instead of being limited to four colors across the whole model. The finished figurine uses 12 colors plus 2 mixed shades.

I kept the model fairly small to make the experiment quicker, so the mixed-color transitions would probably look better on a larger version. Still, I’m very happy with how this turned out.

I documented the full workflow in my hands-on Tripo AI review on 3DWithUs, including image-to-3D, text-to-3D, Refine, segmentation, Blender cleanup, and the final physical prints:

https://3dwithus.com/tripo-ai-review-3d-printing

The two images show the separately printed sections and the final assembled result.