Enscape 2.0 - Running Very Slow

  • I upgraded to Enscape 2.0 and there is a vast difference (negative) in how it performs compared to version 1.9.6. Navigating through the model in Enscape, movements are very choppy and the picture quality is very grainy. I am running it on the same exact computer. The performance of both Enscape and Revit was so slow I had to revert back to version 1.9.6. I've read some posts suggesting that a more powerful graphics card may be required. I am running NVIDIA GeForce GT 720 with configurations as below. Has anyone experienced similar slowdowns and do you have suggestions on how to address this problem?

    Thanks!


  • Hi Martin,


    sorry to hear that you're experiencing a performance drop. Unfortunately your graphics card is indeed not really suited for taxing realtime graphics applications, but more of a regular office computer's card. If you're looking for better performance in Enscape I'd very much recommend to go for a gaming graphics card. For instance the Nvidia GTX1060 will already improve performance by several times in comparison to your current graphics card for a moderate amount. There are of course also pricier options that will offer even better rendering performance.


    To be able to navigate more smoothly with your current setup I'd recommend to set Enscape's to Rendering Quality at least to "Medium" or "Low" in the Settings window. Reducing the size of the Enscape window will also relieve your graphics card.

  • Hello everyone.


    I have the same problem in my laptop, which has a Nvidia GTX960M gaming graphics card, and I have also the same experience that Martin has told.


    It´s amazing the umbeliable quality jump between those last versions.

  • i will put my two sense in on this discussion and im not trying to be rude by any means so please do not take it that way. Enscape is much like any other real time engine, and with high quality real time experience comes with a large hardware demand. A gt720 and a gtx 960m have performance ratings below 2200, the gt 720 does not even break the 1000 mark. These graphics processors are just not designed for this type of work and will never perform as you want them to. To give you some comparison, a 6 year old gtx 580 that can be picked up for 45 bucks on ebay is 5 times more powerful and a new generation 10 series is 12+ times. If you are using enscape as a tool to produce images, animations VR etc you must also have the other tools to go along with it. A fast processor, decent amount of ram and a good graphics card. Using an under powered card for this type of work is like trying to drive a nail with a spoon. go get yourself a hammer and you wont regret it.


    I know a gtx960m is sold as a gaming card, but it really is not and has poor performance for compute calculations. Not many games in the world that actually keep your graphics card at 100% the entire time.

  • What worries me most about this product though is the demand for more and more will eventually have an adverse effect on what was good about it to begin with. The more and more that's asked of the developers the greater the impact it will have on performance and actually being able to run it efficiently.


    The great thing for us is that it's usable for the everyday user not just the 3DS Max user for example. There needs to be a point where we say 'this is good enough for the end user and for what we set out to produce' anything more than this and you're looking at a higher end Max or Unreal Engine.


    Enscape is sold as a real-time rendering engine add on for Revit and Sketchup. I think people need to remember that Revit and Sketchup will be most practices main software and if machines are used primarily to run these two programmes then adding Enscape on will become impossible unless you ask them to invest £££ in new machines which won't always be plausible. There will be a fine line in this I am sure.

  • What worries me most about this product though is the demand for more and more will eventually have an adverse effect on what was good about it to begin with. The more and more that's asked of the developers the greater the impact it will have on performance and actually being able to run it efficiently.


    The great thing for us is that it's usable for the everyday user not just the 3DS Max user for example. There needs to be a point where we say 'this is good enough for the end user and for what we set out to produce' anything more than this and you're looking at a higher end Max or Unreal Engine.


    Enscape is sold as a real-time rendering engine add on for Revit and Sketchup. I think people need to remember that Revit and Sketchup will be most practices main software and if machines are used primarily to run these two programmes then adding Enscape on will become impossible unless you ask them to invest £££ in new machines which won't always be plausible. There will be a fine line in this I am sure.

    I agree and we're aware of that. In most cases, new features do not mean less performance. Version 2.0 is an exception, because it's a big step towards quality - not only added features. We will now focus back on making it run faster while adding useful features. A quality and performance requirement step like from 1.9 to 2.0 is so far unique for us and will not happen again for a long time.


    And as previously said: There's an option to set the quality a bit lower. We want to deliver a smooth experience at mid range hardware but also leverage the powerful machines. Of course, it does not work well when using a poor machine and setting the quality to "Ultra".

  • What I don´t undestand is that Enscape sais in their system requirements: "If your CPU and RAM is sufficient to load your projects in Revit without problems, it will be enough for Enscape"

    Well, for huge Revit projects, my computer is much more better than "enough", i´m sure of that. It has no only the GPU I said.

    What i am trying to say is that if other computers only have "enough" hardware to run Revit software, i´m very sure they will not be able to use Enscape.

    I think Enscape is a usefull tool, but more usefull if I have a poor computer because if what I want to do is Real Time Render I will try to use Unreal Engine or other tools. But i don´t think Enscape is a tool for those one, i think is more usefull for the much more, like me, that want a fast solution without a huge inversion of money or time in hardware or UE4 knowledges

    Anyway, I did last week a 3d export .exe with 1.9.2 and the same now in 2.0. First one in Ultra quality runs without problems, second one runs without problems in Low, and results looks like better in 1.9.2.

    In this way, for my, it´s a step back in quality. I´m sorry but it´s what i feel. I want fast results with the computer i have, not that.

  • We have different machines in our office. All have Enscape on them, some have mid range hardware with mid range graphics cards, some have frankly crappy hardware and a joke for a graphics card. and then mine and a few others are ultra machines with the best of the best. Point im trying to make is a large revit model can be loaded on each of them and even loaded into enscape on each of them. With that each machine will have different performance levels and in the case of enscape we have to set different quality settings. Even the worst machine in out office with just 1gb of graphics memory can load the revit model into enscape, we just turn the settings way down.


    As long as there is the option to turn down the settings i think enscape will work for everyone. But to say lower the quality for everyone thats just not the future.


    In architecture your tools are the computer and the $$$ software you run on them. You need to upgrade and keep your machines current as this is what makes you the money, along with talented people.

  • I'm with Victotti all the way. Enscape 2 is giving me a real concern in regard to performance and image quality, and when I purchased it 2 weeks ago I wasn't expecting this! To be clear, I think Enscape is awesome, and still recommend it to people but with the caveat that they should try the demo first. With 1_9_6 I recommended Enscape without reservation.


    I've attached a document comparing the same model with versions 1_9_6 and 2_0_0 on a range of quality settings. There appear to be so many changes from 1_9_6 to 2_0_0 that it's hard to know where to begin. With 1_9_6 I could set it to Ultra and happily run around with decent image quality (matching low), then when I stopped I'd get a nice little progress bar while the image was refined (where's the progress bar gone?). With 2_0_0 I'm expected to settle the for the low setting? I may as well use Navisworks for that. If I set it to the higher settings when walking around movement is very jerky, image quality exceptionally grainy, and dark! When you stop the refinement takes place, but unlike 1_9_6 which literally was refinement, with 2_0_0 the image transforms from a dark grainy preview to a lighter detailed image, more representative of what you'd expect. There are just too many differences between the quality settings with 2_0_0 to settle for a lower setting, unlike 1_9_6.


    It's not reasonable to throw around arguments like you need to speculate to accumulate, or just use lower settings. I have no problem with investing in the right tools for the job, but in this instance the upgraded tool has significantly downgraded what I can do with it. Don't ask me to run with the low setting!

  • Guess im confused, the image quality is leaps and bounds over 1.9.6 and speed at least in our office has not been sacrificed as others have mentioned.


    Colin, are you sure you are lowering the correct settings for the images? what graphics card are you using?


    When we decided to purchase enscape, we also made the commitment to upgrade all the users graphics cards to be able to use enscape to its fullest potential. Technology wont stand still because of older hardware. Perfect example, years ago i purchased a tesla s2050 4 gpu server to be used with engines like vray and thea. In the day it was extremely $$$ and did a great job. Now i can get the same performance out of one gtx 1080. for 1/20th the cost.


    If you are happy with version 1.9.6 why not just stay with that version, what is forcing you to update to 2.0? When you are able to purchase a new graphics card upgrade to a newer version. I have plenty of software i use an older version just because i dont like the newer version.


    Its a tough sell to try and make the rest of us users that spent lots of hard earned cash on new hardware etc to have lower quality images because a few do not want to update the tools that make them money. Please look at what you are asking quote "Dont ask me to run with lower settings" Why would you want to do that? A gtx 1070 is $380 us dollars, you paid more for the enscape license and the graphics card will benefit you on ALL software you use.

  • Is this a Revit issue? I use the Sketchup version and I like the new quality and I have not noticed a slowdown, in fact, Enscape loads much faster and even larger models are a breeze. I do have a high-end machine (Ryzen 1800x with 2x 1080ti's) The Sketchup version does not have all the bells and whistles the Revit version does so maybe in that there could be a slowing factor, cannot say.

  • Is this a Revit issue? I use the Sketchup version and I like the new quality and I have not noticed a slowdown, in fact, Enscape loads much faster and even larger models are a breeze. I do have a high-end machine (Ryzen 1800x with 2x 1080ti's) The Sketchup version does not have all the bells and whistles the Revit version does so maybe in that there could be a slowing factor, cannot say.

    The SketchUp and Revit rendering for Enscape are identical since 2.0. The loading speed is being continuously optimized, which also happened this time.


    We know that certain bugs previous to 2.0 made colors brighter, but that was incorrect. Reverting to this behavior because it looked pleasant does not seem right - we work towards showing it as correct as possible without distorting anything to create a certain look. Hence the visual changes in terms of color. They were no artistic choices.


    And as I said: Performance and Grain/Noise will certainly be improved in upcoming releases, so we try to satisfy not only high-spec machine users.

  • I think this may be a case of where more realistic isn't always better. In Colin's images, the lighting is certainly more realistic with version 2.0, but I definitely prefer the older images because they have more overall illumination and warmth to them (due to the lack of artificial lighting).


    Maybe there should be some sort of in-between mode that approximates version 1.96 performance? Currently, the drop off to medium quality is enormous, and I can understand why users are frustrated to be told to lower the quality settings. Is it possible to add a setting that approximates the old high/ultra mode from 1.96 (without the improved reflections and all path tracing), or does that overly complicate the engine? (since I'm sure a lot has changed)

  • @Colin.Magner thanks a lot for taking the time creating these comparison shots for us! These help us already to better understand your concerns regarding image quality. However we'd also love to better analyze the performance issues you're experiencing - if possible could you provide the Revit project files for us (together with your system's specifications) so that we can have a look at it ourselves? I'll write you a PM so that you can contact me directly.

  • I think one important point is being missed here. If you put aside the problems users are encountering for a moment and think about what you are intending to do with your walk through.

    If you are to issue it to a client to allow them to navigate it at their leisure do you have to issue a caveat requiring them to check the specification of their hardware to run the file.

    Clients don't want, I have found the results for version 2.0 to be pretty good, it's getting it to the client is the difficult part.

  • I have told my team to not update to Enscape 2.0 because of the slow performance. Majority of our computers graphic cards are as shown in the attached image. There is a lot of hiccups and hitches. Prior to Enscape 2.0, high and ultra level were running no problem. Enscape is still our go to design and 3d visualization tool. But, I hope you can work on the slow performance as soon as you can.

  • i still think is falls to what you intend to use enscape for. All realtime engines require good graphics cards, its just how it is. So really the choice you have to decides on is quality vs speed. If you are looking for speed, even version 2.0 with all the settings turned down has way better quality then the other true realtime engines. Take unreal for example, everbody sees the cool walk throughs unreal can do, but what they done see is the hours of setup and then multi hours of texture baking it takes to get it to production.


    We have now done multi presentation with enscape and i can tell you, clients want quality. they would take the quality over speed everytime. Clients typically dont have the sense of 3d space that architects do so they want to see the finishes see the environment etc. Even a slow speed is super impressive to clients as most have never seen this type of presentation before anyways.


    If you are using enscape for design review in your office do you really need realistic shadows and reflections on piping and ductwork when you are checking for conflicts etc? It just looks cool so you want to see it, but it is not required. so for this i say turn the settings way down.

    Above i see the screenshot about the k4200 graphics cards and the performance issues. Quadro cards have a specific task, and its not realtime rendering, i know alot of IT departments put these cards into the workstations, but you are stepping outside of the cards intended use. As i said before the production managers and it departments will need to get together in the future and sort out whats best for each workstation but you can have a one size fits all solution. Use your tools for their intended uses and when they dont work for those uses get yourself better tools.

  • Hello there,


    We're also back to 1.9.6. Enscape 2.0 is not working for us. Reasons:

    - Performance. Enscape 2 is REALLY slow compared to 1.9.6, for no reason. And we're moving it with a GTX 1080.

    - Light. Our main project nowadays is a building with almost no windows. Where Enscape 1.9.6 works happily, getting good interior light, Enscape 2 gets terrible, grainy, dark light. It's not just "a bit darker" or "a bit more grainy", it is simply unacceptable results.


    I think the new light tracing capabilites are the reason for all this. Hope we can disable this new light tracing and get back to good old 1.9.6 light in new versions.

  • xsb It should run with ease on a GTX 1080. How much VRAM does your GTX1080 have?

    How are you recognizing the slow performance? Is it running fluently or only with hickups?


    You can get the old lightning by setting the rendering quality to low. You could also test to lower ambient occlusion (or set to "0").