>>62210559Interesting. But (close-up, from below:1.2) is my bread and butter...
>>62210872Already in my prompt at least.
>>62211687>Iirc you need to lower the cfg with exponential samplersGood to know!
> when I tested them I just decided that they weren't worth the hassleYeah I remember coming to the similar conclusion when I tried them awhile back. They can make some... interesting outputs, but nothing consistent.