Skip to main content

Got suggestions for us?

Share your Feature Requests and Suggestions! Please check existing suggestions before submitting new ones, and keep in mind that SeaArt is continuously evolving - some current limitations may already be in our development pipeline!

At the same time, adding the appropriate tags when sharing can help the relevant staff view and address your feedback and suggestions more efficiently.

If you need to report a Bug or Technical Issue, please visit SeaArt official site or Discord to find Customer Service for faster resolution.

Note: Technical issues submitted here may not receive direct responses!

Content not relevant to the suggestion will be deleted after evaluation.

Completed

支払方法(pay pal)

支払方法にpay palが無くなってるんですが、早く復活してください。でないと更新できません。カスタマーサポートに問い合わせたら”近日中”と返答がありましたが本当に近日中に再開されるのでしょうか?

gukdj.juuegjll3e17 days ago
2
Awaiting Dev Review

Feature Request: User-Controlled Audio Modes for Video Generation

The new Wan 3.0 and MiniMax H3 related models essentially add powerful native audio capabilities that will bring video generation to the next level. At this early stage, though, audio generation can be rather unpredictable and counter-productive: clips may contain unsolicited ambient sounds, music, vocalizations/gibberish, or unprompted dialogue. More subtly, speech-like sounds (e.g. in a vocal background track) may trigger lip synchronization although no speech (e.g. a monologue or dialogue) was intended. It would therefore be very helpful to give users explicit control over what kind of audio generation is permitted for a clip. One possible structure could be: 1. OFF / Silent — No generated audio: no ambient or action sounds, music, vocals, or dialogue. Importantly, this should also suppress speech-related lip synchronization. Natural facial and mouth movements (e.g. to express surprise or as part of other expressive gestures) should remain possible, but characters should not appear to articulate speech when none was prompted by the user. 2. NATURAL / Scene-Consistent — Generate only sounds naturally implied by the depicted scene and visible events: footsteps on the actual surface shown, a closing door, environmental ambience, etc. No unsolicited dialogue, vocals, or background music. 3. DIRECTED — Audio becomes an explicit and intended part of the user’s generation instructions, e.g. short specified dialogue (“Character A says: ...”), “let the character comment on the scenery/action in its own words,” or “add a calm, jazz-flavored instrumental background track.” Scene-implied natural sounds are not automatically included in this mode; users who want both would select the fourth option. 4. NATURAL + DIRECTED — Combine scene-implied natural sound with explicitly user-instructed audio components specified in the prompt. Here, the generation instructions would typically specify how both audio layers (scene-implied and user-instructed) should interact, blend, and persist over the clip’s timeline and, where applicable, across clip continuations. This is key to avoiding a disconnected audio mosaic. (At the more advanced end, a production workflow could use externally supplied audio – e.g. a pre-generated voice track and/or soundtrack – as authoritative inputs, with the video synchronized accordingly through lip movements, facial expression, body language, etc. This goes substantially beyond the basic DIRECTED mode meant here, but helps delineate its scope.) From a UI perspective, one possible implementation could simply be an Audio Mode control with four mutually exclusive options: OFF | NATURAL | DIRECTED | NATURAL + DIRECTED Depending on what the respective native model/API can reliably support, only a subset might initially be available. Even a robust OFF option would already provide substantial value at the start. Feature request in a nutshell: Explicit user control over the permitted audio generation through four mutually exclusive modes: OFF | NATURAL | DIRECTED | NATURAL + DIRECTED — i.e. no audio | scene-implied natural sound only | explicitly user-instructed audio only | scene-implied + user-instructed audio (typically, with user-guided balancing of both components) If you think this is worth exploring by the Dev team, please forward it. Happy to be mo

H N (Scotti.Q)27 days ago
AI videoAudioCreative Flow
Completed

アップスケールの不具合

現在「創意アップスケール」を実行しても、描写(書き込み)が一切変わらず、サイズも1041×2048にならず、単純な2倍サイズ(1664×2432)になってしまいます(通常のアップスケールと同じ挙動にすり替わっています)。通常のアップスケール(HD修復)についても2倍に設定しても2倍にならない

yu mor1 month ago
1
Completed

About AI Character Chat Subscriptions

Since the renewal date for my chat subscription service came up just last night, I canceled it. It seems I can still make payments through the app, but now that the “VIP free” label has disappeared, it’s unclear what features are actually available, and I was mainly using the browser version anyway. Also, with the service’s future looking uncertain, I just couldn’t bring myself to pay for it. I hope that the service returns to its original state as soon as possible, so I can use the unlimited chat feature with peace of mind.

1AI Character
Completed

いよいよこのサイトを使う価値が無くなった

いつの間にかAIキャラのモデル選択に致命的な改悪が施され、辛うじてこのサイトを使っていた理由も潰えた。 以前は不必要なくらいチャットモデルが豊富だったが、自分の所持エネルギー事情に合わせて、継続的にチャットを利用することが出来た。 だが今用意されている4種類のモデルは、受け答えはそこそこ優秀なものの全体的にコストが高く、尚且つNSFWに非対応のモデルが多すぎて、SeaartのAIキャラクター唯一と言っていい長所が失われた。 一番ひどいのは『ソーダ』。消費エネルギーは『⚡1』とあったが、最初の会話ですら受信に⚡5前後、送信には⚡2程度消費しており、消費エネルギーが詐欺じみている。 『ウォーター』は話にならないほど低品質で、『メロウ V3』は看過できないほど消費コストが重い上、これがデフォルトに設定されているのが悪意の塊としか思えない。 『Sip V1』はまぁまぁ使えるが、最初の会話でも併せて7エネルギーほど取られ、消費コストが重すぎて、この調子では300エネルギーあっても足りない。 いつものごとく課金に誘導するための稚拙で傲慢、理不尽な改悪で、度重なる規制の強化で肩身の狭かったAIキャラクターの唯一の良ささえ無くなり、もう本当にSeaartを利用する意味が無くなった。 もう話にならない。

麦竹1 month ago
1
Completed

Flexible Image Roles for Video Generation

While this request was already included as a side request within the functional request for a ⟨⟨Reference-Guided Video Continuation feature⟩⟩ (posted 2026-09-17), let me raise it independently here for clarity so that it may not be missed. For Wan 3.0 and MiniMax H3 related models, users currently have to choose between “Reference to Video” and “Image to Video.” The former accepts reference images, whereas the latter allows a start frame and an end frame. While this separation may be inherited from the native models, SeaArt could potentially provide a more flexible UI layer on top of it. A simple approach would be to let users upload the images for a planned clip first and then assign a role to each image individually. By default, an uploaded image could be treated as a reference frame; hovering over or selecting its thumbnail could expose the three core roles for reassignment where needed: Reference frame | Start frame | End frame. There may be multiple reference frames, whereas the start frame and end frame, if used, must obviously each be unique. (As an optional extension, a Loop frame role could also be useful for scenes intended to loop.) This distinction between at least the above three core roles matters when the user has a particular visual progression or plot in mind. Within current Reference to Video workflows, explicitly instructing the model to treat one of the uploaded reference images as the start or end frame typically does not reliably impose that structural role. Feature request in a nutshell: Allow flexible role assignment for uploaded images within a single video generation instead of requiring the user to choose between reference-image and start/end-frame modes. Core roles: Reference frame | Start frame | End frame Optional extended role: Loop frame

H N (Scotti.Q)1 month ago
2AI videoCreative Flow
Completed

I beg you🙏🙏🙏

This is a great app—the only thing I don't like is THAT IT'S HARD TO FIND OLD BOTS. You see, I really liked one bot, but I decided to take a break from it, forgot the name, and I’VE BEEN TRYING TO FIND IT FOR FOUR DAYS NOW!!! Please, please add a feature that lets you see ALL the bots a person has ever used. That would really help when looking for bots I haven’t used in a long time ❤️

0_Ksenir_01 month ago
3AI Character
Awaiting Dev Review

Reference-Guided Video Continuation feature

Dear SeaArt Team It is good to see the new scene-guidance possibilities offered by the “Reference to Video” function, for instance in your Wan 3.0 and MiniMax H3 related models. However, generating two or three connected clips that form one continuous scene still faces a major limitation: prolongation based mainly on the final frame of the preceding clip tends to induce substantial drift in reasonably complex / filmic scenes, while genuine persistent scene memory across clips would be the natural way forward – but is not yet available. A practical intermediate solution might be to allow users to provide a separate set of Previous-Clip References, in addition to the reference images for the clip currently being generated. The former would serve as context anchors only: user-selected frames showing what has already been established in the preceding clip – characters, clothing, objects, spatial configuration, camera perspectives, etc. – without being treated as content or keyframes that should appear in the new clip. The user would deliberately select these frames and describe, where useful, their chronological or spatial relation. A camera orbit is a simple example. Suppose Clip 1 moves roughly halfway around a scene. The user could provide several representative frames along that trajectory and indicate their approximate camera positions. One suitable frame near the end of Clip 1 – not necessarily its literal final frame – could then serve as the start frame for Clip 2. The new clip would continue the orbit from there, while the other Previous-Clip References provide visual information about parts of the room, characters, clothing, or objects that may no longer be visible in that start frame. Crucially, these frames describe the preceding clip; they are not frames that the new clip should reproduce. In other words, the user manually provides and structures part of the scene memory that a fully persistent system would otherwise have to infer and retrieve automatically. My concrete feature request would therefore be to add a second, clearly separated reference input for video continuation: Previous-Clip References – user-selected frames from the preceding clip that condition the continuation but are explicitly excluded from the timeline to be generated. From a UI perspective, it might therefore make sense to separate the Previous-Clip Context (verbal description + reference images) from the actual generation prompt (generation instructions + new reference images), with each field having its own associated reference images and text description. Besides keeping “what has already been established” separate from “what should happen next”, this would also keep image referencing simple and unambiguous: @Image1 in the Previous-Clip Context field would refer to the first reference from the preceding clip, while @Image1 in the actual generation prompt would refer to the first reference image for the new clip. This avoids having to mix two sets of images serving two different purposes within a single prompt. The exact UI implementation is of course secondary; the key requirement is a clear separation between previous-scene context and current-clip generation. This new Reference-Guided Video Continuation feature could provide a relatively lightweight bridge between current last-frame prolongation and future persistent scene-memory systems, while leaving the difficult-to-automize selection, retrieval, and description of the relevant previous-scene information to the user. As a related feature request, allow users to specify whether each uploaded image for the clip to be genera

H N (Scotti.Q)1 month ago
1Creative FlowAI video
Completed

Custom node pack installation request : ComfyUI-H3-FaceRefine

Hi! I'd like to request support for the following ComfyUI custom node pack: ComfyUI-H3-FaceRefine https://github.com/Carasibana/ComfyUI-H3-FaceRefine It provides a temporal face-refinement workflow for already-generated videos: face tracking, stabilized crops, per-frame adaptive denoise, H3-based face regeneration, and temporal stitching back into the original video. This would be especially useful on SeaArt as a post-processing/refinement stage for videos generated with Wan 2.2 / WanVideo and other video models, particularly for correcting small or distant faces while preserving the original video motion and composition. Since SeaArt already supports MiniMax H3 and many of the required ComfyUI video/model components, this node pack could provide a very useful video face-detailing/refinement workflow. Thanks!

Inspecta Gadget2 months ago
1ComfyUICreative FlowAI AppsAI video
Planned

I would like you to adopt a variety of base models.

I feel like more people are switching to other platforms because there are some images that can't be rendered using SeaArt's checkpoint. For example, SeaArt's base model can't create images where objects pass through walls or images that transform a half-body 2D model into a 3D one. But if that's okay with you, then that's fine.

BMW smatgain3 months ago
1
Completed

Around 11:35 p.m., the AI Creative Points Battle Pass once again made it possible to claim the Stamina, Coins, and Treasure Chests corresponding to your current level.

After that, without realizing it was a bug, I ended up using about 100 stamina. Please note that I haven't opened any coins or treasure chests. I would appreciate it if you could check this.

Kibou Tokumei4 months ago
1

You won't be able to scroll

This is for the PC version, but you won't be able to scroll when opening individual works from the portfolio on your personal page. You can fix it by going to "Create" or reloading the page. No need to reply.

哲嘉5 months ago

Questions Regarding Posting Restrictions and Distrust of the Administration

A user posted feedback stating that they had been penalized with posting restrictions. If this penalty is for [significantly disrupting SeaArt’s community standards by posting content that is in some way inappropriate]… Shouldn’t the AI system and the admins who initially judged the work as “no problem 👍️” be the ones punished? And for them to act as if they and the AI are blameless—saying something like, “No, we imposed the penalty on the user because we deemed the content inappropriate”—isn’t that a gross case of shifting the blame? I seriously wonder if they just don’t understand why users are up in arms—or if they simply refuse to try to understand—and isn’t it fair to say that this only leads to a complete lack of trust in SeaArt’s management policies?

アギト5 months ago
42Other
Completed

The customer support representative wasn't actually a real person⁉️

You’re actually calling it “artificial customer service,” aren’t you? JJJJulio, I once filed a complaint with the customer support center and asked, “You’re not a real human, are you?” They replied, “I am a real human,” but now it’s been confirmed that they were lying, right⁉️

アギト5 months ago
7Other
Completed

It's the Standard Plan, but I can't generate 8 images at once.

It's the Standard Plan, but I can't generate 8 images at once.

nanasi nana5 months ago
5Personal CenterOtherWorks/Post/Article
Need Customer Service

SeaArt's AI is an imperfect system

The criteria for determining content restrictions are way too vague—something other users have been complaining about for a while now. This time, I was working on an entry for the Daily Challenge, “Ambassador of Chilled Carbonated Drinks,” but true to form for SeaArt’s crappy AI,it generated an image where, for some reason, it looked like a massive amount of water was flowing out from the bottom of a bottle of Coke. The artwork itself wasn’t subject to any viewing restrictions or censorship at first, but as soon as I used the “Smart Erase” tool to make a minor edit, it mysteriously got flagged with viewing restrictions and censorship. Between this “after-the-fact” censorship and refusing to impose a full viewing restriction to prevent resubmissions, it seems SeaArt’s management only resorts to underhanded and cowardly tactics, doesn’t it? Take the work in the middle-left of the image above—I simply used Smart Erase to remove the water flowing out of the Coke, yet for some reason, it was restricted and flagged. I’d really like them to explain exactly what’s inappropriate about this piece.

アギト5 months ago
15Other
Completed

仕事の状況が更新されました

全くもって意味不明です。 この規制はなんですか? フィードバックで良く見かけますが、申し立てで解除されたにも関わらず、再度規制され、意味のわからない異議申し立て結果を出してくる。 運営の嫌がらせとしか思えないのですが、何なのか説明を求む。 以前書いた記事にも載せましたが、多くの方がいいねだけでなく、お気に入りしていただいてます。 その方々まで見えなくなるのは心苦しい。安易な対応は止めてください。

Need Customer Service

Is this harassment?

It received a lot of favorites and likes. However, as usual, it feels like you’re just playing catch-up If you say there’s a possibility of that, then you have to explain what exactly is wrong—otherwise, I have absolutely no idea what the problem is. Also, it’s strange to reject something based on mere possibility. If it’s not allowed, please give a proper reason.

Completed

You give unbelievable crap in those gift boxes

It’s bad enough that I have to open a stupid box, wait for the animation and barely get 15 Stamina per day when I used to get a minimum of 30 reliably. You don’t even give away that but instead hand out idiotic avatar halos and wreaths! What kind of idiots do you take us all for?

Taras Tkachenko5 months ago
3