Wrong Shadows

Please cast your votes in our two ongoing feedback polls here and here!

    I have also run into some issues with light-leak and incorrect shadows, but specifically the newer version of Enscape seems to be much worse in this regard.


    I've attached two images. One is from Enscape version 2.4, and the second is 2.5. Specifically look at the shadows around the car models - in the 2.4 version, the shadows are much more pronounced, while in 2.5 they almost disappear.


    Now, I realize this model is going to create problems with light leak, as it has a very large ground plane behind it that shouldn't be there. However, I found it odd that with no model changes at all, the issue seems to be (at least visually) worse in the newest version? Also note in the newer image, I bumped shadow sharpness all the way up, which helped some but not much (the other changes are materials, and turning on outlines to try and compensate for the shadow loss).

    Thanks for posting the examples.


    When doing that sort of thing, it is helpful (not required) to keep everything else constant. The sun angle changes slightly in these... not saying that is the cause but when asking developers to troubleshoot it helps to present as clear as possible.


    I have noticed this type of scene and shadows have been a problem for Enscape. I had hoped they were attempting to improve this behavior.

    Quote from AugustR

    I have also run into some issues with light-leak and incorrect shadows, but specifically the newer version of Enscape seems to be much worse in this regard.

    It sometimes happens that improvements are better in 80% of the cases but worse in 20%. For 2.6, we're currently working on a major improvement on the sun shadow quality, it will be in one of the next public previews.

    Quote from Thomas Schander

    It sometimes happens that improvements are better in 80% of the cases but worse in 20%. For 2.6, we're currently working on a major improvement on the sun shadow quality, it will be in one of the next public previews.

    Just a quick question for clarification - will this be for all graphic cards or will it be different on RTX cards? I was looking at the 2.6 list of proposed improvements, and I was concerned how far will we fall behind with GTX cards only.

    Quote from andybot

    Just a quick question for clarification - will this be for all graphic cards or will it be different on RTX cards? I was looking at the 2.6 list of proposed improvements, and I was concerned how far will we fall behind with GTX cards only.

    The sun shadow improvements I'm talking about are unrelated to RTX. You will still benefit from the raytracing improvements without an RTX card, since we have a compatibility mode that runs the RTX features on non-RTX hardware. It's just not as fast and will likely be tuned a bit down here and there (as it already is in v2.5), but it will still benefit heavily.

    ... again I just want to underline the urgency and necessity of an improvement here with this current work example. All Nvidia drivers are freshly updated and I'm working with the latest Enscape version. It is unquestionable that these unchanged so bad shadow results are absolutely unacceptable...
    (so very frustrating as well since i have never received any usable result so far)

    ;) I always wonder why Enscape can render materials so well but this banality of a shadow calculation doesn´t seem to be possible ;)

    they said in 2.6 will improve quality of the shadows so we will se in which range from camera it will be true .....

    i mean that shadows degradation based on distance must be really NOT noticable .....


    btw : are that window sill light proof ?

    Quote from jan1

    they said in 2.6 will improve quality of the shadows so we will se in which range from camera it will be true .....

    i mean that shadows degradation based on distance must be really NOT noticable .....

    :);) yes ! and frankly and only as far as it concerns me: I don't care about all this VR stuff as long as at least the sills will have a top quality ;-) !! so I hope for the best :thumbsup:

    The problem is not exactly with the size of the building; it's a combination of the size of the building and the view Egie is trying to achieve:

    To get an almost 'flat' image with no/limited perspective you have to have a very narrow field of view. To fit all the building into the view, you have to "zoom out" really far. Enscape calculates the shadows in an optimised way for a 'realistic' walk-through or render and since the building is so far away from the camera, it doesn't think it needs to have a perfect image because the building is not close enough for the camera to see it properly...

    It is my understanding that Enscape currently has a bug with the way it handles it shadow maps. See previous thread from Feb 26th that identified that there is a bug in the code....


    Problems i found


    I have tested and this with the current version(s) and it has not been fixed yet. Until it is, I will assume any glitches like the one you are seeing are related to it.


    EDIT: Just followed up and heard back on the issue I was having with shadows. Apparently this is planned to be fixed in 2.6 (approximate ETA < 3 months) Not certain it is the same problem, but I suspect it is related.

    EGIE , our upcoming improved sun shadows with 2.6 will actually help with displaying shadows more faithfully than right now in the distance. :)