Wrong Shadows

  • no, didn't find any mistakes, there is nothing wrong with it. Shadows should be rendered correctly. It's a nice model, i even stole some textures. At least i'm honest about it. As far as my name, thank you, i'm xxl but that doesn't mean i'm fat, i'm just 6 feet 7 or 2m, not fat. ^^

  • ... pure SkUp :-)
    (e.g. most details, all window, doors, etc. in the master model are predefined self-cutting components etc ... - so very little manual work)

  • I didn't expect an other UI of the global atmosphere options, since it doesn't need a host functionality. So, I hope it will find it's way to Rhino too. Thanks for the note. :)

    The shadow sharpness slider is included in the latest Preview version only (it's independent from the software you're using it with (Rhino/Revit/Sketchup/Archicad).

    I can reproduce the problem. It seems the further the sill is away the from camera the more pronounced the problem seems to be.

    For me increasing shadow sharpness improves it, but doesn't solve it.

    This is a correct observation - shadow resolution is higher around the camera, which may somtimes result in worse shadow quality when you're using a very narrow field of view (as you're then normally more far away from your model). We're working on improving that for the next version.

    Another good practice is not to use a large terrain mesh/ground plane around your building. The larger your scene's extends the more has to fit on a limited shadow texture resolution, which inevitably leads to light leaking and other issues we've seen here.

  • I installed the newest Preview yesterday - hmm, this Shadow Bug doesn't seem to go in a better direction i think :(
    Besides the well known very unclean shadow calculation itself, shadow artifacts are added now (see wall area and picture border)
    (Edit: pic#2 on the right is rendered with the previous Preview)

  • The shadow sharpness slider is included in the latest Preview version only (it's independent from the software you're using it with (Rhino/Revit/Sketchup/Archicad).

    This is a correct observation - shadow resolution is higher around the camera, which may somtimes result in worse shadow quality when you're using a very narrow field of view (as you're then normally more far away from your model). We're working on improving that for the next version.

    Another good practice is not to use a large terrain mesh/ground plane around your building. The larger your scene's extends the more has to fit on a limited shadow texture resolution, which inevitably leads to light leaking and other issues we've seen here.

    hmm - my current model has no terrain at all - only the pure building model in the otherwise empty SkUp space, and I don't want to think about the fact, that just adding a little bit of land would inevitably lead to even worse results ;) if that is possible at all - So good to hear you're working on it for the next version...


    It is totally impossible to avoid any environment - so this suggestion has nothing to do with "best practice" but rather with "most unrealistic" :)

    "...which may somtimes result in worse shadow quality when you're using a very narrow field of view..." I don´t understand what you mean here ?

    What I notice here is very unusual for renderers: Enscape has much less difficulty in calculating so perfect interiors:thumbup:. Of all the exteriors, which everywhere else are the simpler discipline in lighting and shadow calculation, Enscape does´t reach any acceptable constant quality level so far ;);)

  • Another good practice is not to use a large terrain mesh/ground plane around your building. The larger your scene's extends the more has to fit on a limited shadow texture resolution, which inevitably leads to light leaking and other issues we've seen here.

    Clemens Musterle


    Thank you for that insight. I have three questions about this:


    1) For large scenes (such as a city, large campus, etc) would it be useful to attempt to isolate just the visible geometry for a given viewpoint?


    2) To actually isolate geometry, is turning on/off layers sufficient or should the hidden portions be deleted from the model?


    3) Would including background geometry such as a treeline that is a significant distance away from my building design possibly cause light leaks in my views of that building?


    If the answer to #3 is yes, then we really need the ability to control the horizon imagery better. I have been using opacity mapped geometry to workaround the limitations of not being able to update the horizon interactively. This approach creates a much larger overall model. If we were able to load horizons as any other texture without having to restart the program, the need for this type of background geometry could be avoided in some situations.

  • 1) yes, exactly

    2) Turning off layers is sufficient

    3) Depends on the distance of the trees to the building. Usually scenes with even a couple of hundret meters in each direction aren't an issue at all. Only huge environments in the kilometer range are difficult.

    "...which may somtimes result in worse shadow quality when you're using a very narrow field of view..." I don´t understand what you mean here ?

    Narrow field of view -> See Enscape settings "Field of view". A "natural" field of view is somehwere around 90°, if you've set values <60° this acts basically as if you're zooming in with a zoom lens and therefore the camera position is rather far away from your geometry, which results in a less optimal shadow quality.