One more thing that is making me concerned is the lack of new assets, there have been hardly any added in the last few months - one Linden tree is all I've spotted.
Should I stay with Enscape?
- Grizzler
- Thread is Unresolved
-
I HATE the idea of enscape being stand alone ala twinmotion and others. I hate the idea of splitting out the workflow to distinctly separate apps. I like to do my geometry in SKP and have it rendered in enscape. This is why I ignore the recent addons of enscape like plotting to a map etc. I would need to bring buildings back into SKP if that is to be a working workflow. I don't want to have to manage different parts in different places because then if I have to do things in Enscape then it becomes a managing problem of if I need to change the original model in SKP or have some things in one place and others in the second place. If I have to show my clients only in enscape render then I can't do simple image exports in SKP etc. It's adding complexity to create models. I want a simple workflow that works reliably. This is maybe the primary reason I don't like twinmotion and I do like enscape. It's not as synchronized as enscape and I don't want to add materials in twinmotion that I don't have in the original SKP.
-
I still use both renderengines. I only have a 8GB RTX 2080 so when rendering larger areas with lots of trees Enscape quits. Twinmotion can handle larger amounts of polygons. Also for some renders/video I need animated cars, people and bicycles. This cannot be done in Enscape (yet?). On the other hand. I really like the Enscape assets. The cars and vegetation is much more suited for me then the trees in Twinmotion which seem mostly not European oriented. The workflow is great with Enscape. No importing and adding materials (I created my own material library that is loaded in my SU template). So still using both for the coming time I guess.
-
I certainly agree that I wish enscape had movable assets of people and vehicles etc.
-
I HATE the idea of enscape being stand alone ala twinmotion and others. I hate the idea of splitting out the workflow to distinctly separate apps. I like to do my geometry in SKP and have it rendered in enscape. This is why I ignore the recent addons of enscape like plotting to a map etc. I would need to bring buildings back into SKP if that is to be a working workflow. I don't want to have to manage different parts in different places because then if I have to do things in Enscape then it becomes a managing problem of if I need to change the original model in SKP or have some things in one place and others in the second place. If I have to show my clients only in enscape render then I can't do simple image exports in SKP etc. It's adding complexity to create models. I want a simple workflow that works reliably. This is maybe the primary reason I don't like twinmotion and I do like enscape. It's not as synchronized as enscape and I don't want to add materials in twinmotion that I don't have in the original SKP.
If Enscape became a stand-alone application it doesn't necessarily need to function just like TwinMotion. I agree, I HATE remapping materials in TwinMotion and the ultimate deal-breaker for me is having to place lighting directly in TwinMotion vs SketchUp. TM is horrible for creating or fine tuning a lighting plan (revisions are a time-suck).
Via a well thought-out live-sync, all material and lighting instances can still live withing SketchUp and translated through to the external application. D5, for example, uses SketchUp to place lighting instances (place-holders) that the external D5 application picks-up and translates. It's light-years better than the method in TwinMotion and much closer to the current workflow with Enscape/SketchUp.
Running Enscape via a stand-alone application could potentially also add (just to name a few):
Better performance
Better & more toolsets - (landscape/terraforming, foliage & asset skatter brushes, for example)
More assets & compatibility (importing more file formats)
-
I HATE the idea of enscape being stand alone ala twinmotion and others. I hate the idea of splitting out the workflow to distinctly separate apps. I like to do my geometry in SKP and have it rendered in enscape. This is why I ignore the recent addons of enscape like plotting to a map etc. I would need to bring buildings back into SKP if that is to be a working workflow. I don't want to have to manage different parts in different places because then if I have to do things in Enscape then it becomes a managing problem of if I need to change the original model in SKP or have some things in one place and others in the second place. If I have to show my clients only in enscape render then I can't do simple image exports in SKP etc. It's adding complexity to create models. I want a simple workflow that works reliably. This is maybe the primary reason I don't like twinmotion and I do like enscape. It's not as synchronized as enscape and I don't want to add materials in twinmotion that I don't have in the original SKP.
I will up you one... I loathe the idea of enscape being a standalone like the others. The reason I use it is because it is NOT a standalone. By being imbedded in the skp modeling process it becomes a DESIGN tool.. not a rendering tool. If I need a perfect rendering I can send it off to be final rendered. I want a DESIGN tool and switching between programs is the antithesis of that.
-
I will up you one... I loathe the idea of enscape being a standalone like the others. The reason I use it is because it is NOT a standalone. By being imbedded in the skp modeling process it becomes a DESIGN tool.. not a rendering tool. If I need a perfect rendering I can send it off to be final rendered. I want a DESIGN tool and switching between programs is the antithesis of t
I'll reiterate my comment below-
Via a well thought-out live-sync, all material and lighting instances can still live withing SketchUp and translated through to the external application.
-
The less back and forth the better...
-
I will up you one... I loathe the idea of enscape being a standalone like the others. The reason I use it is because it is NOT a standalone. By being imbedded in the skp modeling process it becomes a DESIGN tool.. not a rendering tool. If I need a perfect rendering I can send it off to be final rendered. I want a DESIGN tool and switching between programs is the antithesis of that.
This is how I use Enscape ... a design tool.
I have been using Enscape with REVIT for approximately 1 year and Enscape is doing exactly what I need to convey the designs to my clients. Even in "White Mode", my clients are able to visualize their design without the need to try and guess what it going to look like.
My people cannot "see in 3D" like we designers can and find it very hard to visualize the design from a 2D plan; this is where Enscape comes into play. It is easy to use, navigate and see changes instantly. My entire design workflow has changed to where the client has to approve the 3D model and the 2D construction drawings are just a part of the final product.
I have also looked at other programs that create better renders, have better assets and make it look real. However, it comes at a cost -- "TIME".
I'm hoping that CHAOS will take Enscape to the next level in the future to match the other programs, The main reason why I started with, and sticking with Enscape, is the ease of use.
-
Still no reassurance from Enscape yet, couple that with the fact that all the big Archviz youtubers stopped doing enscape videos months ago and it's making me very suspicious that something negative might be going on behind the scenes ?. I would love Demian Gutberlet or someone else to give us a clear idea of what the future holds for Enscape ... please?
Right away, just to make sure this is very clear: No part of my response below is meant to be personal or trying to downplay your worries, but I hope it still provides some clarity:
I think I did mention it before just worded differently but, there is nothing "suspicious" going on behind the scenes which we aren't sharing - As you know, the support for Enscape + Vray is still a focus point alongside adding feature parity to our Mac version.
Besides that there is the roadmap of course but at least for now there also aren't any major news I can share for the better or worse - We've made quite the improvements to mirrors/reflections among other things with our latest previews, just in case you didn't know yet. That has always been a highly demanded feature request and we will of course continue receiving other requests via our portal to be implemented in the future too.
I'm also aware that your expectations and wishes in this case aren't fully met by Enscape. Of course, not taking into account features which are requested by "the majority" every user wants different things which fit their workflow. To quote you: "but unless there is a major overhaul v4.0 coming VERY soon then I am afraid I will be leaving and it is unlikely I will be back." - I certainly cannot make any promises about a major overhaul for version 4.0 to make that clear and I reckon that is the main culprit here.
Last but not least, in case you haven't seen it yet, just to provide some further insight into how requests are handled internally you can check out this post here. We wanted to provide more clarity in that area and I hope it is doing that.
Feel free to share any further thoughts of course, though I'm afraid we may not come to an "agreement" exactly I reckon.
-
Still no reassurance from Enscape yet, couple that with the fact that all the big Archviz youtubers stopped doing enscape videos months ago...
Much like Sketchup, I think Enscape is a bit of a victim of its own success by virtue of its ease of use. As others have said, it is a design tool. It has allowed our typical Revit/Rhino/Sketchup users to easily generate their own renderings that fulfill 90% of their needs for communicating design intent. It isn't a ProViz tool, but people have managed to push it to nearly the level.
I certainly have a list of items w/Enscape that have gone unaddressed for years, but render quality is not generally a concern, If I need the highest quality I will use a different tool. If your competitors are using superior software that costs less, why are you sticking around?
-
Much like Sketchup, I think Enscape is a bit of a victim of its own success by virtue of its ease of use. As others have said, it is a design tool. It has allowed our typical Revit/Rhino/Sketchup users to easily generate their own renderings that fulfill 90% of their needs for communicating design intent. It isn't a ProViz tool, but people have managed to push it to nearly the level.
I certainly have a list of items w/Enscape that have gone unaddressed for years, but render quality is not generally a concern, If I need the highest quality I will use a different tool. If your competitors are using superior software that costs less, why are you sticking around?
I think for the same reason most users do, because of the things it does that others don't, mainly in terms of integration with design software and efficiency of time.
