There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

I have tried LCM without LCM lora and it could actually generate some normal images
I think it is fine?

There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

It can be used with checkpoints with merged lcm lora, and it also works with sd_turbo

It's challenging to verify whether or not user is using LCM LoRA. If we can verify in some way, then I tend to do things in this way

• if user is using this sampler, we check if user is using LCM LoRA
• if user is using LCM LoRA, we check if user is specifying a low CFG scale

One way to do so is to verify if the LoRA's name contains substring "lcm", but I'm not sure if this is a proper way.

I think it was bad idea

I think the best way is to add some kind of optional warning section
This will be good since we may add more features which only works if you enable/use some specific resources. Or some feature that is intended for specific hardware or whatever like that

Hi guys, it would be great to extend the LCM sampler to TCM sampler,
https://mhh0318.github.io/tcd/

Hi guys, it would be great to extend the LCM sampler to TCM sampler,
https://mhh0318.github.io/tcd/

That's good, but it's called TCD (

There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

It can be used with checkpoints with merged lcm lora, and it also works with sd_turbo

hi @

There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

It can be used with checkpoints with merged lcm lora, and it also works with sd_turbo

Hi @continue-revolution This is great! LCM-lora is available for use with controlnet?

@bigmover should be fine with any combination (no error on your terminal) but the performance will require your own experiments

@bigmover should be fine with any combination (no error on your terminal) but the performance will require your own experiments

@continue-revolution Thanks very much for your prompt reply! I mean if controlnet use the same steps with SD base model, perhaps will have an influence on the quality on image. May I ask if there are any related suggestions or ideas?

@bigmover Various experiments (ControlNet + AnimateDiff) show that you do not have to worry about this

There should also be some way to convey to user that the lora is needed for this properly function. Maybe a warning message in the outputs (like the ones you get when you use a lora you don't have).

I have tried LCM without LCM lora and it could actually generate some normal images I think it is fine?

You mean that low CFG and low steps is ok on the quality of image? Besides whether newer TCD whill be supported?