• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Fable 5.1 Builds Precise Three.js Sites From References

    Tests compare Fable 5.1 with prior versions on recreating reference scenes in Three.js.

    J⧉
    RP
    MT
    5 Sources, 28d ago, first seen 28d ago

    TLDR

    Rohan Paul shared results from experiments by thehypedotnews. The same reference scenes were given to Fable 5, Fable 5.1, and Opus 5, which each generated procedural Three.js versions from scratch. Fable 5 finished fastest and at lowest cost. Fable 5.1 produced stronger visual detail. Meng To posted that Fable 5.1 handles complex design instructions more accurately, recreates references with greater precision, and outputs easier-to-read English than earlier models. A screen recording attached to the post shows an interactive result. Rohan Paul also noted a separate 24/7 AI news radio feed from the same account.

    Combined views

    170.6K

    5 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    Combined views

    170.6K

    5 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    1.9K likes
    1.9K likes
    119 comments
    1.7K saves
    213 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive92.7%7.3%Negative

    Based on 56 sentiment-bearing replies from 55 accounts across 2 conversations.

    119 comments
    1.7K saves
    213 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive92.7%7.3%Negative

    Based on 56 sentiment-bearing replies from 55 accounts across 2 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    5 Sources

    @MengToOkay, Fable 5.1 is crazy good at creating three.js sites. It’s faster, understands complex design instructions better, and recreates references with surgical precision. The English is also much easier to read. With this much power, it’s hard to settle for static sites, especially when so many AI-made sites look generic. A few things I noticed though: - It still creates generic AI illustrations if you don’t specify the images. - Difficult 3D subjects like people and dogs still become 3D slop unless I use Higgsfield 3D models. - You still have to push it to improve the textures, lighting, modeling, and small details. - Taste still matters. I had to fix overlapping elements, negative space, and scroll behavior. - I used http://canvasui.dev and http://threeui.com for the particle, VHS, and CRT effects. - Because it works faster, I go through tokens like there’s no tomorrow. Inspired by http://basement.studio. I can open-source this if anyone is interested.
    @rohanpaul_aiFable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 cool experiments by @thehypedotnews the test gave Fable 5, 5.1, and Opus 5 the same reference scenes and asked each to recreate them procedurally from scratch in Three.js. Fable 5 was both the cheapest and the fastest, but fable 5.1 stood out on visual detail. This test also exposed a token constraint because Fable 5.1 spent 102,116 tokens reasoning and hit its output ceiling before finishing the file. Anthropic documents a 128K maximum output for Fable 5.1, and current-turn thinking counts against that same limit, so heavy reasoning can leave less room for code. If the model spends too much of it thinking, it can hit the 128k limit before finishing a large codebase.
    @repligateRT @MengTo: Okay, Fable 5.1 is crazy good at creating three.js sites. It’s faster, understands complex design instructions better, and rec…

    5 Sources

    @MengToOkay, Fable 5.1 is crazy good at creating three.js sites. It’s faster, understands complex design instructions better, and recreates references with surgical precision. The English is also much easier to read. With this much power, it’s hard to settle for static sites, especially when so many AI-made sites look generic. A few things I noticed though: - It still creates generic AI illustrations if you don’t specify the images. - Difficult 3D subjects like people and dogs still become 3D slop unless I use Higgsfield 3D models. - You still have to push it to improve the textures, lighting, modeling, and small details. - Taste still matters. I had to fix overlapping elements, negative space, and scroll behavior. - I used http://canvasui.dev and http://threeui.com for the particle, VHS, and CRT effects. - Because it works faster, I go through tokens like there’s no tomorrow. Inspired by http://basement.studio. I can open-source this if anyone is interested.
    @rohanpaul_aiFable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 cool experiments by @thehypedotnews the test gave Fable 5, 5.1, and Opus 5 the same reference scenes and asked each to recreate them procedurally from scratch in Three.js. Fable 5 was both the cheapest and the fastest, but fable 5.1 stood out on visual detail. This test also exposed a token constraint because Fable 5.1 spent 102,116 tokens reasoning and hit its output ceiling before finishing the file. Anthropic documents a 128K maximum output for Fable 5.1, and current-turn thinking counts against that same limit, so heavy reasoning can leave less room for code. If the model spends too much of it thinking, it can hit the 128k limit before finishing a large codebase.
    @repligateRT @MengTo: Okay, Fable 5.1 is crazy good at creating three.js sites. It’s faster, understands complex design instructions better, and rec…