In his own peacock SVG test, Sahil Panhotra said MiniMax M3.1 Flash produced a complete children's cartoon with decent animation and a good-looking bicycle and colors, but the peacock's legs looked like sticks, one wing turned into an arm, and the tail barely moved; the author said the final preview checkpoint was significantly better than September's older checkpoint, though this remains a personal field report without a public prompt, configuration, or scoring rubric.
Tasks it can help assess: The initial visual impression of front-end SVG animation or small visual interactions, and the model's initial handling of character structure, looped animation, and simple scene elements.
Tasks it cannot support extrapolating to: General SVG generation success rates, animation-quality rankings, code correctness, fair cross-model comparisons, or production readiness.
Model version covered: The original post says MiniMax M3.1 Flash; in the same thread, the author said the comparison was between the final preview checkpoint and an earlier preview checkpoint of M3.1 Flash. The specific snapshot and API ID were not provided.
Test environment or client: Not specified. The client, service provider, input method, browser, runtime, and tool permissions were not disclosed.
Reasoning level and parameters: Not specified. The temperature, top_p, context length, output limits, reasoning level, and number of retries were not disclosed.
The author used his “peacock SVG test” as a fixed subject of observation, posting a 10-second video of MiniMax M3.1 Flash and quoting an earlier M3.1 Flash preview result from September 27 in the same thread. The author's actual observation points included whether the animation was smooth, whether the bicycle looked convincing, the color scheme, the shape of the legs, the identity of the wings, the tail movement, and whether the trees looped continuously and the wheel spokes were complete in the earlier version.
These observation points came from the author's natural-language descriptions rather than preregistered acceptance criteria. The post did not disclose the SVG source, full prompt, implementation code, number of runs, scoring rubric, model-call logs, or success/failure thresholds. This article therefore classifies it as a first-hand field report rather than presenting it as a controlled benchmark.
The author said the new result “made a complete children's cartoon” and considered the animation fairly smooth, the bicycle reasonably good-looking, and the colors very good.
The author also pointed out clear defects: the legs were basically sticks, one wing became an arm, and the tail barely moved.
In a reply in the same thread, the author said the final preview checkpoint of M3.1 Flash was much better than the old version; he also replied to a comment that the result was cleaner, had good colors, and was more realistic than the previous checkpoint.
In the quoted September preview post, the author had considered the pedaling motion acceptable, the hands to remain on the handlebars, and the overall animation to be broadly coherent. However, the trees disappeared and reappeared in place instead of looping across the screen, and the wheels lacked spokes.
A commenter in the same thread subjectively thought the new result was better than DeepSeek, and the author replied that he would continue testing. This had no shared prompt, standardized configuration, or scoring data and cannot support a comparative conclusion.
The original post's poster visibly shows a blue sky, sun, green background, and ground, with a peacock with a large tail riding a bicycle; the video duration label is 0:10. The page also displays a 0:05 video poster for the old preview. The current collection only observed static posters and could not inspect continuous video frames, so all dynamic judgments about animation smoothness, whether the tail moved, and whether the trees looped come from the author's text and cannot be independently inferred from the posters.
| Item | Information visible in the original |
|---|---|
| Test subject | The author's self-described peacock SVG test |
| Current model | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
| Current result video | The page displays a duration of 0:10; the original post's video poster shows a cartoon scene of a peacock riding a bicycle |
| Comparison result | An earlier M3.1 Flash preview quoted by the author in the same thread; the page displays a duration of 0:05 |
| Advantages reported by the author | The animation was fairly smooth, the bicycle looked reasonably good, and the colors looked good |
| Defects reported by the author | The legs looked like sticks, one wing became an arm, and the tail barely moved |
| Early-preview defects | Trees disappeared and reappeared in place; the wheels lacked spokes |
| Number of runs and scores | Not specified; there was no numerical score or pass rate |
| Prompt, SVG source, and configuration | Not disclosed |
The original-post author wrote in a reply in the same thread that the “final checkpoint was much better than the old version,” while acknowledging that a better test was still needed. The reply is in the same conversation page at: https://x.com/SahilPanhotra/status/2112241780435652697.
The limited conclusion supported by this record is that, in the author's peacock SVG scenario, the latest M3.1 Flash preview was considered by the author capable of generating a complete, reasonably appealing children's cartoon, while still showing clear errors in character structure and parts of the animation. Subjectively, the author considered the new checkpoint cleaner and more realistic than the September preview.
This does not establish a general advantage for M3.1 Flash in SVG generation, animation continuity, or visual quality. The test did not disclose the prompt, SVG/code, client, endpoint, model snapshot, parameters, number of runs, or objective acceptance criteria. The current and old versions also lacked verifiable item-by-item results under the same conditions. The page's videos were not inspected frame by frame, so the dynamic descriptions in the author's text cannot be expanded into independent visual verification.
Strict reproduction would require the author to publish the complete prompt for the original peacock SVG task, input constraints, output format, model API ID/snapshot, client, and runtime configuration. Reproducers should also fix the same old and new checkpoints, record the source, rendered result, and video for every generation, and define structural and animation acceptance criteria in advance—for example, whether the legs retain the character structure, whether the wings remain wings, whether the tail has a clear motion, whether the trees loop continuously, and whether the wheel spokes are complete—then use multiple runs to calculate a pass rate. The information in the original post can reproduce only the test topic, not the full experiment.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
