Enscape is great but I cant use it for pro renders.

  • After the joy of discovering a very fast software. I am forced to switch back to Vray.

    Unfortunately, for the moment Enscape is not able to compete with rendering software such as Vray.

    There are too many problems and constraints that impose a huge post production time.


    - The problems with mirrors and reflections are unbearable.

    - The lack of flexibility when it comes to managing light sources is a real headache.


    Impossible to present images to a client without spending a lot of time in post production.

    The software is very good for presenting simple and fast scenes. For the rest I go back to Vray which is much more robust.


    I have no doubt that the software will improve in future versions.

    But unfortunately I have the impression that the development priorities are not the right ones.

    There are some really insurmountable problems for a professional use that should be corrected as soon as possible.
    :(

  • BOTOSAUR , thanks a lot for your input - Feel free to vote for the corresponding "Light Management Browser" feature through our Voting Portal here as well if you haven't already. That should at least cover most usability problems when it comes to handling multiple light sources and such.


    Furthermore, with Enscape 3.5 (I cannot make any definite promises yet though) we plan to further tackle the ongoing behavior of missing objects in reflections. We may not be able to reach offline-renderer quality just yet in terms of reflections, but this will put Enscape one step closer to it.


    I do really hope you have the chance to get back into Enscape again perhaps a bit later on, and I do appreciate all of your Feedback. If there is ever anything else you'd like to share, please do so through the Forums like you did already, and/or forward your concerns/feedback through the portal too.


    Last but not least though, allow me to also link some great SketchUp+Enscape video tutorials by one of our Advanced Enscape Users here (to get your renderings to the next level), among others you can also generally find in this sub-forum here. And if any other questions come up, let me know as well.

  • - The problems with mirrors and reflections are unbearable.

    I agree. The problem with light reflections (unable to turn off) is almost unbearable and especially infuriating when I read the attitude by one of the founders of the program about "inventing" light sources and such. What makes the author of that quote about reflections from years ago think that using only "real" light sources does in fact give a more realistic result; all of these light sources are "invented." Not sure what Demian means by "missing objects" in reflections; I assumed Botosaur was referring to light reflections you don't want? (Maybe not, but that is my problem.)

    missing objects in reflections.

    I also am enjoying Enscape so much, but for working in interiors, this problem of not being able to turn off a light reflection is just driving me crazy. The attitude expressed by Willberger about "inventing" lights and "magic' lights" seems so anti-rendering. I worry an attitude like that might not bode well for the future, not sure. This comment was made years ago, but still nothing has changed and a lot of people have asked about it. If goal is to make a program that' easy to use, why demand people use absolutely "realistic" lighting in every scene (which again is not at all necessarily more realistic-looking in the end?) Thanks.

  • Example below of rectangle lights reflecting (on left wall). I figured I could take them out in photoshop, but forgot about videos. However I am capturing some nice renderings from points along the video path, each which I could fix in photos shop if necessary. Love ability to do that. Maybe I could focus on ability to create so many renderings from the video path and not focus on videos in some projects.

  • I agree. The problem with light reflections (unable to turn off) is almost unbearable and especially infuriating when I read the attitude by one of the founders of the program about "inventing" light sources and such. What makes the author of that quote about reflections from years ago think that using only "real" light sources does in fact give a more realistic result; all of these light sources are "invented." Not sure what Demian means by "missing objects" in reflections; I assumed Botosaur was referring to light reflections you don't want? (Maybe not, but that is my problem.)

    I also am enjoying Enscape so much, but for working in interiors, this problem of not being able to turn off a light reflection is just driving me crazy. The attitude expressed by Willberger about "inventing" lights and "magic' lights" seems so anti-rendering. I worry an attitude like that might not bode well for the future, not sure. This comment was made years ago, but still nothing has changed and a lot of people have asked about it. If goal is to make a program that' easy to use, why demand people use absolutely "realistic" lighting in every scene (which again is not at all necessarily more realistic-looking in the end?) Thanks.

  • Devs are talking about realistic lights. And you can't have any realistic reflections.

    Lights are horrible in reflections.

    Missing geometry in reflections.

    Metallic materials are reflected as plain white material. Etc etc...


    So realistic.


    Enscape is OK if you don't use any mirrors or reflective materials.

    Seems like a big issue for a "Realistic renderer."

  • Some parts of the geometry are missing in reflections.


    Look at the seats in the image I ve posted.


    6 stools are missing and 1 stool is half missing. Polygons are just deleted in reflections.

    This is completely expected behavior for screenspace rasterization. There is no way to "fix" this, while retaining the rasterization method. Enscape has certainly improved mirror reflections over time but it's always going to suffer the same issues over and over again.


    The only way forward is raytracing with GPU render engines and it's obvious the industry is moving this way with great momentum concerning hardware and software development. Want it right now? Go and check out TwinMotion since they recently implemented raytracing. Plenty of shortcomings with TwinMotion but I definitely appreciate the developments and increased competition.


    As far as Enscape not being suitable for "pro renders"... That's a silly overstatement. Plenty of pro's using it on the daily for professional, paid work. It's up to the pro to choose the correct tool for the job. If you require perfect mirrors and Hollywood-level CGI, you need to be nowhere near a GPU realtime render engines until they go full-on raytraced. You need to be CPU based and using Vray.

  • I see now you were referring to a different problem. I didn't see your image at first; I saw the words saw "reflections, lights and unbearable" together and jumped to a conclusion, thought it was about not being able to turn off light reflections.

    Some parts of the geometry are missing in reflections.


    Look at the seats in the image I ve posted.


    6 stools are missing and 1 stool is half missing. Polygons are just deleted in reflections.

  • This is completely expected behavior for screenspace rasterization. There is no way to "fix" this, while retaining the rasterization method. Enscape has certainly improved mirror reflections over time but it's always going to suffer the same issues over and over again.

    And what about problem of not being able to turn off light reflections in Enscape? Thanks.

  • As an example: This is a screen shot from unfinished model video I'm working on. I actually like this as a still picture; I could photoshop the reflections out of the elevator doors and make use of this rendering. But as a video it is hopeless; there are light reflections everywhere.

  • That is definitely something I wish they would acknowledge and put on the roadmap publicly. Would expect that to be taken care of when they add more robust ray tracing.

    I see that they don't know how to solve this problem till now so they can't put it in a roadmap

    Guuuys Just Hire some Ninja developers

  • This is completely expected behavior for screenspace rasterization. There is no way to "fix" this, while retaining the rasterization method. Enscape has certainly improved mirror reflections over time but it's always going to suffer the same issues over and over again.


    The only way forward is raytracing with GPU render engines and it's obvious the industry is moving this way with great momentum concerning hardware and software development. Want it right now? Go and check out TwinMotion since they recently implemented raytracing. Plenty of shortcomings with TwinMotion but I definitely appreciate the developments and increased competition.


    As far as Enscape not being suitable for "pro renders"... That's a silly overstatement. Plenty of pro's using it on the daily for professional, paid work. It's up to the pro to choose the correct tool for the job. If you require perfect mirrors and Hollywood-level CGI, you need to be nowhere near a GPU realtime render engines until they go full-on raytraced. You need to be CPU based and using Vray.

    If you could tell us more about this inherent problem with rasterization. I'm interested.

    I have indeed difficulties to understand why geometric elements disappear completely in the reflections.


    Moreover I wonder about the philosophy of a software that wants to be "realistic with real light sources" according to the devs.

    While it uses a rasterization rendering engine.

    Knowing that the rasterization imposes necessarily sources of lights not physically real to reach a correct result.

    So it's all and its opposite. It's hard to understand where this software stands.


    About switching back to software like Vray. This is indeed exactly what I said. I'm switching back to Vray because the problems encountered with Enscape are too disabling for MY practice.


    I am an architect and in MY field of creation I have to use mirrors every day.

    If the mirrors can't be rendered in a correct way, it's a brake on the use of this software in MY field of activity : Architecture.

    The same goes for the management of light etc...


    I have made it clear that the software can be useful in some cases. But clearly not in my field of activity in an efficient way. The time spent in post production and the necessary retouching are insurmountable when working on complex scenes. (multiple reflections, complex lighting etc...)


    Concerning the development of the software. I am very circumspect when I see that the devs are calling for ideas to implement new functions instead of improving those already present. Before adding functions that will be used by 1% of the users, it would seem to me coherent to have a robust base.

    I love the concept of real time rendering and I love enscape... But its a pain in the ass in (too) many cases.

  • Concerning the development of the software. I am very circumspect when I see that the devs are calling for ideas to implement new functions instead of improving those already present. Before adding functions that will be used by 1% of the users, it would seem to me coherent to have a robust base.

    +1

  • About switching back to software like Vray. This is indeed exactly what I said. I'm switching back to Vray because the problems encountered with Enscape are too disabling for MY practice.


    I am an architect and in MY field of creation I have to use mirrors every day.

    If the mirrors can't be rendered in a correct way, it's a brake on the use of this software in MY field of activity : Architecture.

    The same goes for the management of light etc...

    Big firms using Enscape widely during design phase and for conceptual renderings and it is perfect for that. Also VR presentations or standalone exes are big plus. Then final renderings are usually done with other softwares that uses CPU such as Vray or Corona. If you are expecting perfect looking mirrors, i think Enscape will never provide that because amount of realism added to Enscape will make the software heavier which will cause firms to stop using it during the design phase because of its lightness. Imo they need to bring an offline renderer inside and keep the real time same quality. Like Twinmotion you can press R(path tracing button) and achieve something close to CPU renderers.

  • Big firms using Enscape widely during design phase and for conceptual renderings and it is perfect for that. Also VR presentations or standalone exes are big plus. Then final renderings are usually done with other softwares that uses CPU such as Vray or Corona. If you are expecting perfect looking mirrors, i think Enscape will never provide that because amount of realism added to Enscape will make the software heavier which will cause firms to stop using it during the design phase because of its lightness. Imo they need to bring an offline renderer inside and keep the real time same quality. Like Twinmotion you can press R(path tracing button) and achieve something close to CPU renderers.

    Yes, I agree.

  • As an example: This is a screen shot from unfinished model video I'm working on. I actually like this as a still picture; I could photoshop the reflections out of the elevator doors and make use of this rendering. But as a video it is hopeless; there are light reflections everywhere.

    Just adjust your material reflection settings to manage the amount. Are you using a seperate reflection map material?


    Sorry, and i would like to point out this is just an opinion but I do not see any real issues with Enscape at concept, design or presentation phases if you use it in the right way. Yes, there are other programs out there, more expensive and trickier to use but you have to decide on the right product for you and for the job. Some people prefer VRAY and I completely get that. Some will opt for Blender and its end-to-end solutions but do people have the time that some of these take to master or generate a decent image...and are they really that much better?


    I use Enscape and Keyshot exclusively and have done so for a long time now. Depending on the type of work/model, I will select one of these two and run with it for the full project duration with no compramises in speed or quality.


    Are you willing to share the model file and let others take a look for you?

  • Big firms using Enscape widely during design phase and for conceptual renderings and it is perfect for that.

    For this purpose it has been a total game changer for my workflow. I keep Enscape open during initial modeling the plan and it's helped me create designs alongside typical AutoCAD drafting designs, etc.


    But I also use it for final renders and our clients love it. Particularly during design meetings when they can fly through the model in realtime with rendered quality and not bare SketchUp. Our clients have no use for photo-realistic, time consuming renders. They also wouldn't notice half the things I see "wrong" in the final renders that the general Archviz community would. Though, I also would not not show them a view with a full length wall mirror. That's been troublesome for one job in particular, so I completely understand the frustration when it happens.


    If you could tell us more about this inherent problem with rasterization. I'm interested.

    I have indeed difficulties to understand why geometric elements disappear completely in the reflections.

    It's way over my head for details, but the way I understand it is that rasterization relies on what is in front of the camera viewport and is not accounting for the world around it (or much of it). You can visually see this as you view a mirror in Enscape. Objects in the corners of the render viewport disappear and/or become very distorted. Particularly if you view a mirror at a hard angle and not straight-on. The render engine is simply losing information to which it is calculating the scene with. FULL raytracing will solve this, but we are in early days still. There is a reason the tech demos have thus far been for converting OLD games like Quake or simple games like Minecraft into full RT demos, yet the performance is "poor"- even impossible on non GPU's without RT cores.

    it's hard to understand where this software stands.


    Concerning the development of the software. I am very circumspect when I see that the devs are calling for ideas to implement new functions instead of improving those already present. Before adding functions that will be used by 1% of the users, it would seem to me coherent to have a robust base.

    Enscape sales and support will only repeat the Enscape mantra to us, which is they built it for simplicity, It's definitely the quickest way for me to get a result, but I think there is plenty room for them to add complexity for users who require it. I'd certainly appreciate more granular fine tuning.


    Totally agree with the development roadmap. And I think every user here has the same sentiment. They need to address the majority of the lingering little things first before releasing some feature for 1% of users (site context...). V3.3 was maybe the least excited I've been for an Enscape release, aside from them finally updating properly support SU2022, which was unusually slow.


    Perhaps the recent partnership with Chaos (Vray) will prove to be quite fruitful. I can hope.