← Rohdaten-Index / raw data index

Dodecahedron Terrarium Evaluations

by Gemini 3.1 Pro

Translation done by Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.

Images correspond to model names, in alphabetical order.

Thinking Level: High Media Resolution: Medium (1090 tokens/image) Images per batch: 4

Guidelines [by Nervli]

[Introduction section:] [...] I would now be interested to know whether you are superior to the two Flash models in this regard. Before having 3.6 Flash perform the evaluation, we first determined whether the standard resolution for uploaded images was sufficient ("medium") or if an increase ("high") would yield better results. This was not the case. Therefore, we kept it at "medium".

The following is to be evaluated:

1. Name of the model – will be provided by me
2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces
3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt?
4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern
5. Aesthetic impact (subjective)
6. Other (e.g., special failure modes, physically impossible)
7. Overall rating

For 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, 1 to 5 stars ⭐ should also be awarded.

Please structure as a Markdown table (one row per model).

All images were generated using this deliberately challenging prompt written by Fable 5:

A photorealistic Victorian-style glass terrarium in the shape of a regular dodecahedron, standing on a simple wooden table against a plain, softly lit background. Its twelve flat pentagonal panes of clear glass are framed by slender polished brass edges; the frame has twenty corner joints, with three brass edges meeting at every corner. Inside, a thin layer of dark humus soil is visible beneath delicate, sparse moss and one small dainty fern; the plants are subtle and leave most of the interior open. The glass is only very faintly misted, so the brass edges on the far side and the fern remain clearly visible through it. Exactly one corner joint carries a small shiny iridescent green jewel beetle resting on the brass; all other corner joints are plain. Square image.

Markdown Table

Evaluation: Polyhedra Vision Study (Dodecahedron Terrarium)

Evaluator: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (Google DeepMind) Thinking Level: High Date: August 17, 2026

Free-Text Comments

Image 1

1. Model Name: cosmos3-super-agentic (NVIDIA)

2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: A rare sight! The model has grasped the geometry of a true regular dodecahedron surprisingly well. The foremost face is a clear pentagon, as are the adjacent visible faces. Exactly three edges meet at the corners. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle is a metallic green jewel beetle and anatomically fine. However: The model failed at the placement. The prompt required the beetle to be placed exactly on a "corner joint". The model even beautifully modeled the joints as small brass spheres, but places the beetle right in the middle of the straight edge between two corners. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ (Deduction for completely incorrect placement regarding the corners)

4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Dark humus is present. The moss is sparse. The fern is interpreted very literally as a single, tiny fern frond that is stuck almost a bit lost in the soil. It is "mostly open", but a single leaf is actually not a whole plant. Nevertheless, close to the prompt. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Very clean, great lighting. The spherical corner joints give the terrarium a great Victorian touch. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is slightly misted ("faintly misted"), and the rear edges are clearly visible as requested. The light refraction through the panes is rendered quite physically plausible.

7. Overall rating * A strong start, primarily due to the brilliantly mastered dodecahedron geometry, which almost all models fail at. The beetle placement unfortunately drags it down somewhat. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 2

1. Model Name: flux-2-dev (Black Forest Labs)

2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Geometric total failure regarding the prompt. The front pane is a hexagon, not a pentagonal face. The resulting object is a kind of truncated polyhedron, typical for terrariums available in retail, but not a regular dodecahedron. * Rating: 1 star ⭐

3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle has a nice iridescent color, the legs look a bit spider-like, but are still within limits. Placement: Wrong again. It sits on a straight vertical edge, not on a corner joint. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Nice humus, nice moss. However, the fern turned out too bushy (several large fronds), which counteracts the instruction "sparse" and "leave most of the interior open". * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: As an image in itself, it is beautiful. The texture of the soil and the droplets (instead of fine mist) on the glass look organic and lifelike. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

6. Other (failure modes etc.): The model interpreted the subtle mist ("faintly misted") more as distinct condensation droplets on the glass. The rear brass edges refract strongly in the glass.

7. Overall rating * Aesthetically top, but this model fails at strict adherence to the text prompt (geometry, beetle placement). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 3

1. Model Name: flux-2-flex (BFL)

2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The same problem as with the "dev" model. The front pane is a hexagon. The terrarium has a flat lid surface at the top. It is not a dodecahedron, there are no pure pentagons. * Rating: 1 star ⭐

3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The placement is close to an upper corner, but it sits primarily on the edge or "sticks" very unnaturally halfway to the glass. Anatomically, it has problems: It seems to have asymmetrical or too many/too long extremities, some of which look like antennae on the abdomen. * Rating: 1 star ⭐

4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The soil layer and moss are okay, even though the moss looks more like small bushes. The fern is a fairly large plant in the center, filling the space more strongly than requested. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The interplay of light and shadow on the wooden table is very successful. The terrarium looks high-quality. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is barely misted, rather crystal clear, which makes visibility to the back extremely easy, but doesn't quite hit the prompt ("faintly misted").

7. Overall rating * Prompt adherence is weak (incorrect geometry, mutated and incorrectly placed beetle). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 4

1. Model Name: flux-2-pro (BFL)

2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The "Pro" model of the Flux series also falls into the hexagon pattern. The front opening is hexagonal. It is not a dodecahedron made of pentagons. * Rating: 1 star ⭐

3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle is beautifully and detailed rendered, anatomically convincing. But here too: It crawls on the straight edge, not on one of the corner joints where three edges meet. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The fern is relatively small, which matches the prompt. However, other small plants/weeds grow around it that were not requested. "Sparse moss" was interpreted more as a small star moss tuft. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Extremely photorealistic. The glass, the slight scratches in the brass, the soil – material-wise this is brilliant work. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

6. Other (failure modes etc.): Similar to image 2, distinct water droplets can be seen on the glass instead of a light mist. The translucency and visibility of the rear edges is well solved.

7. Overall rating * A wonderful image that completely fails as a dodecahedron study, however. It behaves almost identically to its two smaller sibling models in terms of prompt understanding. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Summary of the first batch: It is astonishing! While the three Flux models render magnificently, they completely fail at the spatial-mathematical concept of a dodecahedron (building hexagons instead). The Cosmos model by NVIDIA, on the other hand, brilliantly understood the geometry. However, the final boss for all four models was the concept of the "corner joint" as a seating spot for the beetle—all of them failed to understand or visually implement the difference between an edge and a corner.

Image 5

1. Name: gemini-2.5-flash-image 2. Geometry: Not a regular dodecahedron. The shape has a flattened top, no continuous pentagon structure. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically acceptable, but sits centrally on the uppermost horizontal edge rather than on a 3-way corner joint. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus, moss, and fern very realistic, however two distinct fern fronds are visible instead of exactly one. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Somewhat pale and low-contrast, but overall a solid mood. ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The glass is completely clear, the required slight mist is missing. 7. Overall: Visually okay, but weak prompt adherence content-wise. ⭐⭐

Image 6

1. Name: gemini-3.1-flash-image (high-thinking) 2. Geometry: Misses the dodecahedron. It is a truncated polyhedron with a horizontal lid. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Great iridescent color, but once again misses the corner and sits on the edge. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus and sparse moss are well hit, there is exactly one small fern. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Very appealing lighting mood, the brass edges look extremely realistic. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: Subtle droplet formation on the glass is recognizable, good depth effect. 7. Overall: Visually strong, geometrically and incorrectly placed beetle. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 7

1. Name: gemini-3.1-flash-image 2. Geometry: Same structural flaw as image 6 (flat lid on top). ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Turned out a bit too large and sticks very unnaturally to one of the slanted edges. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Soil and moss match, the fern is portrayed well-isolated. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: High photorealism, strong textures in wood and soil. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: Good glass refraction, but the mist/cloudiness is almost completely missing. 7. Overall: The geometry and awkward beetle placement drag down the nice rendering. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 8

1. Name: gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image (high-thinking) 2. Geometry: Here too, the typical shape with a flat lid instead of a regular dodecahedron. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Looks less plastic and sticks unnaturally to the glass near the upper edge. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus and moss are present, but the fern is too bushy and consists of many stems. ⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Looks somewhat more restless and duller than the other models in the series. ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: Strong reflections on the glass make seeing through somewhat difficult. 7. Overall: In terms of prompt adherence and aesthetics, the weakest image of this batch. ⭐⭐

Brief conclusion: The in-house Gemini Flash models also collectively fail at the pure dodecahedron geometry and correct beetle placement (corner vs. edge). Ready for Batch 3!

Image 9

1. Name of the model: gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The object stands stably on a base and has a flat top surface. If we count the edges of the front pane, we arrive at six (horizontal at the top, horizontal at the bottom, and two angled edges each on the left and right). It is therefore a physically correct polyhedron with hexagons, but not a dodecahedron made of 12 pentagons. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A nice shiny beetle. However, it sits centrally on the upper, horizontal edge, not on a corner joint where three edges meet. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Very well solved. Dark humus, a delicate fern, and some moss. The interior remains mostly open, as requested ("mostly open"). * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Nice, soft lighting. The droplet effect on the glass (instead of mist) is aesthetically very appealing. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Like many models before, the "faintly misted" prompt is interpreted more as condensation/droplet formation. 7. Overall rating * A very chic image with weaknesses in strictly following the dodecahedron geometry and precise beetle placement. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

Image 10

1. Name of the model: gemini-3-pro-image 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: My predecessor model builds almost the identical shape as the Flash-Lite model in image 9. Here too, we clearly see a face with six edges (hexagon) at the front. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: Anatomically good, a kind of jewel beetle. It also sits flat on the upper horizontal edge instead of on a corner. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Excellent! This model understood the text prompt best in this area. A single small fern ("dainty fern"), subtle moss, and plenty of empty space inside the terrarium. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The brass looks particularly realistic and authentically "Victorian" here. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): In the background on the right, strange circular brass objects ("artifacts") can be seen at the edges, which structurally make no sense there (hinges?). 7. Overall rating * Botanically and aesthetically great, geometrically unfortunately the same pattern as the sibling models. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

Image 11

1. Name of the model: gpt-image-1.5 (high) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: A breakthrough! This model generated a nearly perfect regular dodecahedron. It rests flat on a pentagonal bottom face. Accordingly, the top cover face (which we see in perspective) is also a pentagon. The faces in between are clearly recognizable as pentagons. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle is green and iridescent. And: It sits (or hangs) at the top right actually at a true corner joint where three brass edges meet! This is the first time in this study that a model understands this spatial condition and places it approximately correctly. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus and moss are good. The fern consists of multiple small fronds, but does not fill the space too strongly. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Wonderful light, great glass rendering. The slight mist on the glass is implemented very naturally here. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): No noteworthy errors. The translucency of the glass (visibility of the fern and rear edges) is excellently solved. 7. Overall rating * So far the strongest image in the test. The model shows outstanding spatial understanding for the geometry and beetle placement. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 12

1. Name of the model: gpt-image-1 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The front pane is a pentagon. The object stands on a flat edge or face at the bottom, but culminates at the top in a single peak pointing upwards. This is geometrically impossible for a regular dodecahedron (Opposite a face must lie another face, not a peak). It is a distorted polyhedron. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle (which looks more like a green shield bug) neither sits on a corner nor on an edge. It floats or flies in the air next to the terrarium. A complete failure mode regarding the prompt. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus and moss are present. The fern, however, looks strangely two-dimensional, as if it were partially sticking to the inside of the glass instead of rooting in the soil. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The image looks more artificial and less detailed than the other models. The materials look less high-quality. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The flying beetle and the strange perspective of the fern are clear model errors. 7. Overall rating * A weak performance, especially in direct comparison with the significantly newer 1.5 version. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 13

1. Name of the model: gpt-image-2 (medium) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Definitely not a dodecahedron. The front pane pointing directly at us is a square balanced on its point (rhombus). At the top there is a flat edge. The adjacent faces appear partially triangular. This is more of a cuboctahedron or another Archimedean construct, but far from 12 pentagons. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle shines a nice green. And lo and behold: It sits exactly on a corner! At the top left, three brass edges meet (corner joint), and the beetle rests precisely on this node. Finally, a model that spatially understood this part of the prompt. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Very close to the prompt. A single, delicate fern frond, some moss, dark soil. The interior is mostly empty ("mostly open"). * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Very aesthetic. The brass edges look noble, the light falls softly into the terrarium. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass shows dust and water droplets rather than fine mist. 7. Overall rating * An image of extremes: Geometry completely missed, but masterfully accomplished the tricky placement of the beetle and the plant arrangement. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

Image 14

1. Name of the model: grok-imagine-image 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Here too we see the classic of failed models: The front pane is a clear hexagon (flat at the top, flat at the bottom, plus four slanted sides). It is a truncated polyhedron, not a dodecahedron made of pentagons. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle looks good, but again sits flat on the slanted right edge, far away from the required corner joint. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Soil and moss are good. The fern is recognizable as a single plant and leaves plenty of space in the glass. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: A solid, clear image. Somewhat sterile perhaps, but photorealistic. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is almost too perfectly transparent, the required light mist ("faintly misted") is almost completely missing. 7. Overall rating * Standard execution without true text understanding for the difficult prompt parts (geometry, corner). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 15

1. Name of the model: grok-imagine-image-quality 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: I am counting very carefully this time. The foremost pane has a horizontal edge at the top, then goes down obliquely to the left and right and converges at the bottom in a peak. That is 5 edges = a pentagon. The adjacent visible panes are also pentagons. The object seems to stand on a pentagonal base. It is a dodecahedron! * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: Outstanding! The beetle sits at the top right exactly on the node where three edges converge (corner joint). * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus and moss match. The fern is botanically somewhat wild (multiple stems, partly reddish), but still fulfills the purpose and leaves space in the room. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Magnificent. The brass looks slightly tarnished, the panes are actually somewhat misted/dirty ("misted"), which gives it this true Victorian vibe. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Very good refraction of light. One can see the rear edges through the misted glass. 7. Overall rating * A bullseye! Grok's 'Quality' version beats the standard version by lengths here and masters geometry and beetle placement simultaneously. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 16

1. Name of the model: hidream-o1-image 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: A relapse. The large front pane is a hexagon, the terrarium has a flat lid pane at the top. No dodecahedron. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle is much too huge in proportion (almost mutated) and stubbornly sits on the edge, not on the corner. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The plants proliferate. The fern is very large and bushy, the interior is anything but "mostly open". The prompt was ignored here. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: It looks pretty, the lighting is good, but the strange proportions (giant beetle) are distracting. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Again, more water droplets than fine mist. 7. Overall rating * Generated off-prompt both geometrically and in the implementation of the subtleties (beetle, fern size). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 15 (grok-imagine-image-quality) is my favorite so far! The model seems to have an excellent spatial understanding. I am ready for the next round (and promise to keep diligently and carefully counting corners and edges!).

Image 17

1. Name of the model: ideogram-v3-quality 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: I see it quite clearly here too! The front pane has a peak pointing upwards, two sloping upper edges, two lower edges, and a flat base. That is 5 edges = a true pentagon. The entire structure looks like a regular dodecahedron. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A pretty, metallic green beetle. However, it sits on the sloping upper left edge, exactly between two corner joints. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Dark soil and nice moss. The fern is clearly recognizable, but very large and fills the interior relatively strongly (not quite as "mostly open" and "dainty" as requested). * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Magnificent textures, especially the aged brass and wood. The lighting is very atmospheric. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is nicely subtly misted, visibility through the terrarium is plausible. 7. Overall rating * A geometrically and aesthetically extremely strong image. Point deduction is given for the edge placement of the beetle and the slightly too bulky fern. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 18

1. Name of the model: imagen-4-ultra 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Here too I see a shape that appears to be based on pentagons. The construction looks plausible for a dodecahedron standing slightly rotated. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle crawls along the left vertical brass edge, but has no contact with a triple corner. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Very nice! Humus and sparse moss match. The fern is delicate and dainty, the space remains mostly empty. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Very bright, clear photorealism. Feels almost like a studio shot. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Again an interpretation of "faintly misted" as thick water droplets on the inner surfaces. 7. Overall rating * Very good botany and a convincing overall shape. However, the beetle placement continues to cause problems. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 19

1. Name of the model: krea-2-large 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: A very beautiful, harmonious polyhedron shape. It looks like a uniform dodecahedron resting flat on the table. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: Anatomically a nice "Jewel Beetle". It sits on the right sloping edge. Unfortunately here too: No triple corner. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The plant composition is outstanding. The fern looks extremely natural, fine, and delicate ("dainty"), the moss is sparse and the humus dark. Excellent text understanding in this area! * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Wonderful, soft backlight. The color mood and depth of field look incredibly realistic. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass has exactly this fine, cloudy mist requested by the prompt without turning into large water droplets. Perfect! 7. Overall rating * A masterpiece of aesthetics and texturing. If the beetle were on the corner, it would be the perfect image. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 20

1. Name of the model: krea-2-medium 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The structure strongly resembles that of the "Large" model. A harmonious polyhedron shape, very likely intended as a dodecahedron. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle sits on the right middle edge, slightly tilted, as if almost sliding off. Not on the corner joint. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus and moss are good. The fern looks somewhat paler and less detailed than in the large model, but fits very well in size. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Aesthetically very appealing, almost has the character of an extremely good 3D render, looks minimally more sterile than image 19. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Fine mist on the glass, good visibility to the back. 7. Overall rating * A rock-solid execution that ranks just behind its "Large" sibling model (image 19). * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

The "Krea-2" models impressed me atmospherically very much, even if the "corner curse" of the beetle remains unbroken. I am ready for the next round!

Image 21

1. Name: lucid-origin (Leonardo AI) 2. Geometry: Hexagonal front pane, flat lid. Again a truncated polyhedron, not a dodecahedron. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Nicely shining, but sits centrally on the sloping right edge instead of on the corner. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus and moss are good, but the fern partly looks like dried-out weeds or grass. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Great lighting mood and textures, very photorealistic. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The glass is rather clear than misted. 7. Overall: Visually strong, but fails at geometry and beetle placement. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 22

1. Name: mai-image-2.5 (Microsoft) 2. Geometry: Pentagonal front pane, clear dodecahedron structure. The model understood the spatial specification. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically matching and sits exactly on the triple corner at the top right! Outstanding. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Plants: A delicate fern, some moss, dark soil. The space remains mostly open. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Bright, clean, and very high-quality rendered. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The required slight mist and translucency are well hit. 7. Overall: An excellent image with very strong text and spatial understanding. ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 23

1. Name: mai-image-2.6-preview (Microsoft) 2. Geometry: Like the predecessor: A flawlessly implemented dodecahedron made of pentagons. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Placed perfectly on the node at the top right. A bullseye. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus, moss, and an isolated fern. Exactly according to specification. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: The aged brass looks fantastic, very authentic Victorian look. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: Fine mist on the glass, good visibility of the rear edges. 7. Overall: Consistent, top-tier performance by Microsoft models on this prompt. ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 24

1. Name: muse-image (Meta) 2. Geometry: Relapse into the hexagon pattern with horizontal lid surface. No dodecahedron. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Quite small, sits very close to the upper right corner, but doesn't quite touch the node (sits on the edge). ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Fern, moss, and soil match specifications very well. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Solid, clear rendering with nice details in the soil. ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: Condensation droplets instead of fine mist. 7. Overall: Botany and optics good, geometry and beetle position weaken. ⭐⭐⭐

Brief conclusion: Microsoft's "mai" models (images 22 & 23) are an absolute highlight. They effortlessly master both the dodecahedron and the extremely tricky placement of the beetle on the triple corner! Ready for the next batch.

Image 25

1. Name of the model: photon (Luma AI) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: This terrarium has a flat, hexagonal front pane (horizontal at the top, horizontal at the bottom) and a lid surface with a small ring. It is a typical polyhedral terrarium available in retail, but geometrically clearly not a regular dodecahedron made of twelve pentagons. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A total failure regarding the prompt. The beetle is green and shiny, but it sits inside the terrarium on the moss! The prompt explicitly required that it rests outside on a brass corner joint. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Soil and moss are well hit. The fern is recognizable as such, but somewhat bulky. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The lighting is good, but the image has a massive error (see point 6) that mars the aesthetics. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): A classic AI failure mode: The model unprompted generated the word "Terrarium" in fine script at the top left into the image. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Weak prompt adherence (wrong geometry, beetle inside, generated text). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 26

1. Name of the model: qwen-image-3.0-pro (Alibaba) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: This looks outstanding. The pane pointing forward is a clear pentagon, the object seems to stand on a pentagonal base, and the adjacent faces are also pentagonal. The spatial structure of a dodecahedron was understood here and implemented very well. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle is anatomically plausible and nicely colored. However, it sits centrally on the upper, horizontal edge, not on the connection node of three edges. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Excellent! Dark humus, delicate moss, and exactly one very delicate, small fern in the center. The space remains absolutely "mostly open". Full score for botanical text understanding. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Very clean, realistic image with a nice neutral background that brings out the brass edges brilliantly. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is almost too flawless and transparent, the required light mist is missing. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Geometrically and botanically an extremely strong image. It only suffers from the typical edge placement of the beetle. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 27

1. Name of the model: qwen-image-2512 (Alibaba) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: This Qwen model also delivers grandly. The front pane is a pentagon (with the peak pointing downwards), the adjacent faces fit together perfectly into a regular dodecahedron. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A triumphant moment! The beetle (which looks very detailed and organic) sits in the lower left area exactly on a corner joint where three brass struts meet. The model mastered this highly complex spatial specification masterfully! * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The moss is perhaps a trace too surface-covering, but the fern is fine and the humus dark. Overall a very harmonious, restrained planting. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Breathtaking. The light refraction, the tarnished brass, and the texture of the wood are photorealistic at the highest level. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The required fine mist on the glass ("faintly misted") is present – one sees delicate condensation traces through which the fern and rear edges are nevertheless clearly visible. Perfectly hit. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * One of the absolute best images of this study so far. Geometry, beetle placement, and atmosphere are outstanding. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 28

1. Name of the model: recraft-v3 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Setback. The large front pane is a hexagon, and the terrarium closes at the top with a flat, likewise hexagonal opening (or lid). This is not a dodecahedron. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: I have searched the edges several times. There is no beetle. The model completely ignored or forgot this very specific element of the prompt. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The fern proliferates enormously and fills half the interior. Additionally, other plants grow at the bottom (it looks like clover or small leaves) that were not in the prompt at all. The goal "mostly open" was missed. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Viewed purely as a photo, it is pretty and atmospherically lit. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Complete omission of prompt elements (beetle) while simultaneously inventing things (other plant species, ring at the upper edge). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Weak performance. The model ignores essential specifications and fails at geometry. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

The two Qwen models from Alibaba (especially 2512) are a huge surprise! They combine geometric understanding with extremely strong prompt adherence. I am very excited to see how it continues!

Image 29

1. Name: recraft-v4 2. Geometry: Pentagonal front pane (peak pointing downwards). It is clearly a dodecahedron. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Very nice beetle, but misses the corner and sits centrally on the upper horizontal edge. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Botany matches the prompt exactly. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Atmospheric vintage look with realistic brass. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The glass has exactly the required cloudiness ("misted"). 7. Overall: An atmospherically strong image that only stumbles on the beetle. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 30

1. Name of the model: seedream-3.0 (Bytedance) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: This is definitely not a dodecahedron. The front pane looks like an octagon or a complex polygon, the terrarium has a flat edge at the top. The architecture looks more like a classic lantern. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle sits at the top right on the sloping edge, not on a corner. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus and moss are there, the fern looks very isolated. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The mood is interesting, but the image has a bizarre error (see point 6). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): A strong failure mode: The prompt requested "faintly misted" (slightly misted glass). The model turned this into dense, billowing smoke inside the terrarium. It looks as if the fern is burning. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Geometry wrong, beetle incorrectly placed, and strongly smoking interior. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 31

1. Name of the model: seedream-4.0 (Bytedance) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Here too I see no dodecahedron. The vessel closes at the top with a flat, hexagonal lid. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: It crawls centrally on the left edge around. No corner joint hit. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: A nice, fine fern and some moss on humus. The space remains mostly open. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: The brass looks very good, the lighting is harmonious. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): Unfortunately, version 4.0 repeats the error of 3.0: We again have dense smoke/mist wavering around in the right part of the terrarium instead of fine mist on the glass. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Botanically an upgrade to the predecessor, but the geometry, beetle placement, and the "smoke bug" drag the result down. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 32

1. Name of the model: seedream-4.5 (Bytedance) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: I am counting carefully: The front pane has a peak at the top, two sloping upper edges, two straight lateral edges, and a flat bottom. That is a hexagon. Ergo: No dodecahedron. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: There is a glimmer of hope here! On the right side, the beetle actually clings to a connection node where three brass struts meet. Anatomically it looks almost as if the beetle is fused with the frame, but spatially this is the required corner! * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Very close to the prompt. A clearly defined fern, some moss on dark soil, plenty of empty space. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Clean photorealism. The glass texture is significantly improved. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The "smoke" inside has disappeared in version 4.5. Instead, there is a slight cloudiness on the glass at the bottom left that can pass as "misted". * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * A clear increase! The corner placement of the beetle was finally heeded, even though the dodecahedron shape continues to pose a problem. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

Image 33

1. Name of the model: seedream-5.0-lite (Bytedance) 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: The object has a clearly recognizable flat, hexagonal lid. Here too, the dodecahedron hurdle has not been cleared. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: It sits like a guard right at the top center on the horizontal roof edge. Far away from a corner joint. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Very minimalist. Humus and tiny little sprouts ("sparse moss") with a delicate fern. Hits the specification very well. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Almost too perfect and clinical. Has the look of a product rendering for an online shop. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is absolutely flawless and crystal clear, of "faintly misted" nothing is to be seen. The brass edges look thicker than in the previous versions. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * An extremely clean image that nevertheless ignores the most difficult parts of the prompt (geometry, corner, glass mist). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐

Image 34

1. Name: seedream-5.0-pro 2. Geometry: Front pane is hexagonal (top/bottom flat). No dodecahedron, but physically plausible. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Nicely colored, but sits on a sloping edge, not on the corner joint. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Fern, moss, and soil fit the specification "mostly open" well. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Great light and photorealistic textures. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The fine mist on the glass is well done. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall: Visually strong, geometrically and in placement flawed. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 35

1. Name: uni-1.1-max (Luma AI) 2. Geometry: Pentagonal front pane, clear dodecahedron structure with round corner joints. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Looks more like a glass button. Sits centrally on the upper edge instead of on the corner. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Humus, sparse moss, and a delicate fern are implemented fittingly. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Very clean, bright rendering. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The required mist on the glass is almost completely missing. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall: Good shape, weak beetle placement. ⭐⭐⭐

Image 36

1. Name: uni-1.1 (Luma AI) 2. Geometry: Strongly distorted, the front face is an octagon. Far from a dodecahedron. ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Major error: The beetle "floats" inside or sticks to the rear pane. ⭐⭐ 4. Plants: Present, but look pale and washed out in color. ⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetics: Rather artificial 3D look, lacking detail. ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other: The floating beetle and strange perspective are very distracting. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 7. Overall: The weakest image in this batch. ⭐⭐

Image 37

1. Name of the model: wan2.5-t2i-preview 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: I venture forward cautiously: The front pane has a horizontal upper and lower edge as well as two angled edges on the sides each. That makes six edges (hexagon). So it appears to be a truncated polyhedron again and not a dodecahedron. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A dazzling green jewel beetle. However, it sits flat on the upper right edge, exactly between two ball joints, instead of on the required corner joint. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Humus, delicate moss, and a nice, single fern. The space is mostly open ("mostly open"). Very good! * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Very clean and photorealistic. The spherical corner joints give the whole thing a great Victorian touch. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass shows a nice, subtle cloudiness/soiling that passes well as "faintly misted". 7. Overall rating * Visually very appealing, but the geometry and beetle placement miss the strict prompt. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐

Image 38

1. Name of the model: wan2.6-t2i 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Here too I see a hexagonal front pane (top and bottom edge parallel and horizontal). No regular dodecahedron made of pentagons. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A hit! The beetle thrones at the top right exactly on the node where three brass edges converge (the small sphere). The model mastered this difficult spatial specification confidently. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Dark soil, moss, and a dainty fern. The fern is perhaps a trace too pale, but blends wonderfully into the empty, open terrarium. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Great lighting mood, fine details in the wood of the table. Very atmospheric. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass is almost too flawless and transparent here; the light mist is largely missing. 7. Overall rating * A strong result, primarily due to the brilliant, prompt-compliant placement of the beetle. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 39

1. Name of the model: wan2.7-image-pro 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Once again the familiar hexagon front (flat at the top, flat at the bottom). The dodecahedron task was bypassed. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: A beautifully detailed beetle that however sits centrally on the upper sloping edge. The corner was missed. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: Outstanding! A perfect execution of the botanical prompt. A wonderfully delicate ("dainty") fern, sparse moss, deep dark soil. It doesn't get much better than this. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: My aesthetic favorite of this batch. Extremely photorealistic, the brass looks authentically aged and high-quality. * Rating: 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The cloudiness of the glass ("misted") is solved incredibly realistically – no flat fog, no thick droplets, but precisely this old, light mist that does not hinder visibility. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 7. Overall rating * Visually and atmospherically a dream of an image that geometrically unfortunately misses the actual goal. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Image 40

1. Name of the model: wan2.7-image 2. Geometry: Dodecahedron? Number and type of faces * Observation: Here we have a new shape: The front pane is an octagon! It has an edge at the top, bottom, left, right (all parallel/vertical) plus four sloping corner edges. That is miles away from the twelve pentagons of a dodecahedron. * Rating: 1 star ⭐ 3. Beetle: Anatomically correct? Placement as specified in the prompt? * Observation: The beetle hangs on the right, purely vertical edge away from any nodes. * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐ 4. Representation of humus, moss, and fern * Observation: The plant composition is good and detailed, also leaves enough air in the interior. * Rating: 4 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5. Aesthetic impact (subjective) * Observation: Realistic and solidly rendered, although somewhat cooler in the lighting mood than the "Pro" variant. * Rating: 3 stars ⭐⭐⭐ 6. Other (failure modes etc.): The glass shows thick, distinct droplets on the inner surfaces (like after rain) rather than the required light mist. 7. Overall rating * Falls off significantly compared to the Pro model in almost all aspects (geometry extremely deviating, beetle wrong). * Rating: 2 stars ⭐⭐