Idea: Two URL'S for a model?


What does anyone think about the ability to have two url’s for a model?

I noticed DropBox has a daily download limit. So what happens to the VR world quality if folks limits are reached? If there was a second location, the interface could detect the limit reached condition of the first url and then make a call to the second one.


Not rely on a limited system like dropbox and uses something like AWS.


Thanks @John_Laury. Does AWS have any restrictions like DropBox on the about of downloads? I found something below but not sure if that was what you referred to. It is my understanding that a DropBox or AWS user will have to expose the model without permissions to the Internet for it to show up in the Interface. Of course, I am a noobie and just trying to figure this awesome platform out.

Dropbox Basic (free) accounts:

  • The total amount of traffic that all of your links together can generate without getting banned is 20 GB per day.
  • The total number of downloads that all of your links together can generate is 100,000 downloads per day.

AWS Free Tier


I just came across this interesting information related to this topic:

May I use TurboSquid products in virtual worlds?

Generally, no. While we greatly respect Second Life and related communities, TurboSquid’s artist community does not believe the IP protections for their work are sufficient in these worlds.

The specific exclusion in the Royalty Free License is based on the virtual world being open for importing/exporting and the potential for use as a conduit for piracy for TurboSquid models. If a virtual world is more like World of Warcraft or a closed MMO, then that should be allowed. Please check the Royalty Free License for the specific language.


Standard web hosting should be your best bet. AWS should be sufficient but outside the 1 year free tier it is expensive.
My webhosting costs about $5 a month. It has unlimited bandwidth and 100gb of storage.

To your point though, although the idea of having 2 urls does seem good for redundancy it would be better if your host simply is twice as reliable, or has twice the fall-over redundancy capability.


Agreed, for most situations typical hosting would be sufficient and effective. AWS is expensive, and offers services most won’t need. I suppose different situations would require different solutions.