Its not open source so its not matter since its cannot be local.

It doesn't matter since no one is able to see what is under the hood. This isn't open-source.

Wan has abandoned us. Don't support it. They have released several models since 2.2 and none of them are open source.

Also, the High Low might have been a good thing, breaking up the model to fit more on consumer hardware. Obviously 1 thing is easier, but if we what better, high quality, more complex and capable, we may need more steps like what they did with High Low and not less steps. We'll see, but if higher end local AI means 'one contained solution' which would likely be limited, for example a 15 billion parameter model. I'd be plenty fine with having a 5 step model that's in essence then a 75 billion parameter model, if that means significantly better AI can be run on local hardware. Offloading and reloading as necessary. We don't know what the future holds, but if you want local AI that competes with paid AI that's now pulling way ahead, I wouldn't write off multiple steps instead of wanting 1 step. If 3 step High, Mid, Low means better quality and longer length, I'll take it. If 5 step means even better, I'll take it. Let's see what happens, but local AI is falling way behind paid Kling, Seedance, Veo, etc. for the past year+ and I'm not sure if that will ever change. Our local hardware won't compete with billion dollar equipment and much larger, much more intelligent models that wouldn't come anywhere near fitting into our VRAM or RAM, so be ready to embrace non-1 step solutions most likely. That's the only way you'll be able to fit a higher parameter model into VRAM.

@civitai7_ i agree with every word

Bingo. Very disheartened. I thought they learned their lesson. Cause no way does WAN2.5 have more users than 2.2. 2.7 being closed to the public means dark times ahead. Pony died, hopefully Illustrious and NOob AI's next models won't be closed source onsite only too. :/

how is it better the face emotions look blank

@PastellPastellPastellI Wan is limited, sure it has better face quality but no way you can make 30+ seconds videos at 50fps and ltx2.3 does exactly what prompt you give. Also the face can be fixed with lora's so yes, Ltx2.3 is wayyyy better than wan.

LTX2.3 is bad at human anatomy. LoRAs don't even fix that 99% of the time. It's great at adding audio to WAN videos but other just frustrating to use. I'm not happy about WAN2.5 and WAN2.7 not being publicly available.

And LTX2.3 does not do exactly what the prompt you feed to it. If you write is novel of text it will but most people don't want to have to write out novels worth of data just to get a model to function.

@DaddyWolfgang same

I agree with @DaddyWolfgang. The only advantage I see to LTXV2.3 is the audio and speech, otherwise Wan2.2 is better at everything else concerning video. Note: You can run 30sec+ vids on Wan2.2 using SVI and a ForLoop System. My personnal best is a 1 min long video with this system.