This is an experimental checkpoint that combines some of the best realistic Illustrious models with bigASP 2.5. It worked.BTW, <a target="_blank" rel="ugc" href="https://civarchive.com/models/2068592/snakebite-2">v2.4 is now available here!</a> Give it a try! ❤️ If you like Snakebite, you can help offset the cost of training:<a target="_blank" rel="ugc" href="https://ko-fi.com/liftweights">Buy liftweights a Coffee</a> <h2 id="why-it-matters">Why it matters</h2> bigASP has great prompt adherence but it is wildly inconsistent as far as style and composition. It feels like a base model with untapped potential. Dialing in the right settings is like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube. Illustrious models, on the other hand, lose many concepts when going 3D. They're hit-or-miss even with fairly popular booru tags. But the lighting and composition of these weights are still 👌 I wanted to see if we can get the best of both worlds, and it turns out we kinda can! Careful block merging is the key. We can inject bigASP's output_blocks.0 to acquire much of its conceptual knowledge. Adding its middle_block.2 seems to reduce anatomical issues (otherwise, you'll get a lot of extra arms and fingers.)<h2 id="first-impressions">First impressions</h2><ul><li>Best prompt adherence for a realistic SDXL model I've ever seen. And no, not just for smut. (But especially for smut)</li><li>Compatible with booru tags as well as natural language. I think a mixed prompt approach is best: I use about 70% tags (no underscores) and 30% natural language in a prompt.</li><li>Understands bigASP's style tags to an extent, including stuff like masterpiece quality and 35mm.</li><li>It *feels* like something new and worth exploring. Don't sleep on bigASP!</li></ul><h2 id="drawbacks">Drawbacks</h2><ul><li>Illustrious 2.0 models support resolutions up to 1024x1440 or 1024x1536 without horrific stretching of anatomy (e.g. longcat-type torsos), but bigASP's optimal resolution is only 832x1216... and I don't recommend going above that in Snakebite. If you do, the anatomy will be mostly okay (which is surprising), but image composition becomes very odd and unpleasant.</li><li>Since we're in a strange new latent space, your existing LoRAs won't work very well. But they're worth retraining.</li></ul><hr /><h2 id="recommended-settings">Recommended Settings</h2>The Turbo variant is better for inference. It's super fast and has slightly improved aesthetics. The non-turbo version is useful for finetuning, and it can produce nice textures if you don't mind waiting 25+ steps. <h3 id="turbo">Turbo</h3><ul><li>8 or 9 steps</li><li>LCM sampler</li><li>CFG 1</li><li>Custom sigmas below, or simple<code> </code></li></ul><h3 id="full">Full</h3><ul><li>20 to 28 steps</li><li>Euler ancestral sampler</li><li>CFG 3 to 4</li><li>Custom sigmas below, or simple </li></ul>Custom sigma curve (you can use comfyui-kjnodes to apply): <pre><code>15, 8, 4, 2, 2, 1, 0.4, 0.2, 0</code></pre> If you're getting mangled limbs, you can often salvage the image by adjusting the first few values of your sigma curve. Here's one that is more stable for certain prompts:<pre><code>14, 5, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0.4, 0.2, 0</code></pre><hr />If you're still getting body horror, you can try the following quality tags (you'll need <a target="_blank" rel="ugc" href="https://github.com/pamparamm/ComfyUI-ppm">ComfyUI-ppm</a> to apply negative weights to your positive prompt): <pre><code>masterpiece quality, realistic photo, (worst quality,:-1) (mutated,:-1)</code></pre>Snakebite is very responsive to stylistic terms, especially by IL standards. Keep the extra "fluff" to a minimum - almost every token I've tried has a significant impact on the picture.Finally, I suggest trying the CLIPAttentionMultiply node. If you boost the <code>q</code> and <code>v</code> parameters, it will effectively cause your image to become more "Illustrious-like": cleaner, more stable, but less realistic and (usually) less adherent to the prompt. Set both values to 3 for a very clean image.BIGASP'S CLIP IS NOW IN PLAY!In versions 1.3 and up, Snakebite includes a little of bigASP's CLIP, which means you can take advantage of more style prompts. Experiment with different terms to see what works. Personally, I keep it simple - this will usually improve your image without any side effects:<pre><code>high quality, sharp focus</code></pre><hr /><h2 id="which-version-is-for-me">Which version is for me?</h2>If you're wondering which version of the model to use, here's a TL;DR:<ul><li>v1.4 = next-level realism, jaw-dropping textures, very stable, slightly less vibrant than previous versions and less capable of non-photographic images</li><li>v1.3 = good anatomy, good backgrounds, good coherence</li><li>v1.2 = best punchy colors</li><li>v1.1 = most influence from bigASP (excluding CLIP), dull colors, a failed experiment TBH</li><li>v1.0 = impressively creative but very unstable</li></ul><hr />If you like the model or use it for further finetuning, please let me know! I'd love to see the results. 💪

Snakebite

Full version of v1.3 with acceleration techniques disabled. Not recommended for inference. Useful for finetuning.

Files with SHA256: 673c3f962b82f7964ec3556a12bd0ae51be42dd5d6be9b5796c42efa7ba00a5c