Enscape vs Twin Motion 2018

  • As you will be well aware (and maybe seen the beta versions) Twinmotion is releasing an Unreal based realtime renderer for Revit & Archicad. Initial impression of this system is that it will be one of the best out there for full function (animation/materials/objects etc) real time rendering but it will no doubt come at a significant cost. Looking at their current pricing I would suggest they will be more like $200US/mth which is more than achievable for big firms & big jobs but not something I am going to be jumping at to showcase my everyday residential designs. If they pitch it at $100US a month it could entice me & other archicad users away from Enscape, I realize that is double the price but per month an extra hr of work to have the extra features is an easy sell.


    The point I am trying to make is that you shouldn't spend all your development time/$ on options within enscape please just stick to a straight render that works like you currently have it and you will capture a segment of the market that twinmotion will not be competing in. Simple proxies for sound/vegetation/lighting is all that is required then let all the work be done in the main software beit revit/sketchup or archicad.


    On the Archicad point. Twinmotion is being released with the 1 click syncro add-on built into Archicad. As an Archicad user I currently output through sketchup to Enscape which looks fine but when meeting with clients it makes 'changes on the go' not possible. This will be a big aspect in any decision between the two options. The sooner you have an Archicad add-on the more likely you will capture those that don't want to fork out big $$ for the fully featured twin motion & I would suggest that would be a good chunk of Archicad users.


    What you are offering with Enscape is simplicity. Don't overdo the options just do what you do and do it well at a sharp price. You will still lose out to those customers who want the bells and whisles but at least you haven't spent big $$ trying to hold onto them.


    I will be getting my hands on the Twinmotion system as soon as I can but if they price it to suit the commercial market it will be an easy decision to stay with Enscape. (as long as an Archicad add-on is only months away!!)


    Thanks

  • I think Enscape has its own place and its a secure one at least in our firm. We have twinmotion the 2016 sp3 version. So ill be getting the new version as well. We also have Lumion, artlantis and LumenRT . I personally have Thea and corona for my personal projects. Where im going with this is we work in a Revit environment (sometimes sketchup). Enscape is the easiest to learn, easy to produce, and time saving option out there, and the results if you have your workflow setup are actually the best (excluding thea and corona). Here is the issue with software like twinmotion, lumion etc. Whether i sync or export my file i still have to go in setup the lighting, setup the materials, tweak a ton of settings to get a decent image. And moving around in the scene is not photorealistic. As an architect im using this tool to SEE the space, i want to see the actual finishes, see the correct lighting etc. I get all of that with enscape, i can even add lights while enscape is open to areas of my model that are dark, i cant do this with other software applications.


    Twinmotion is going to be great, and im sure we will use it to create great images, but dont get too excited, it will be a very long time before twinmotion catches the ease and quality of enscape.


    To the enscape team, create a way to bring decent content into revit like a proxies system or something along those lines so we can have vegetation and decent furniture etc.... Call it a "pro version" or something and charge more for that version. Us architects will purchase it...trust me. Everyone else that doesn't need those options can use a standard version. You do that and all the $$ above i spend on other software can be yours :-)

  • Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding ArchiCAD: We currently making good progress on supporting Rhino, but shortly after we will release ArchiCAD too.


    The proxy system is on our agenda and will be supported by SketchUp first but propably the other ones will follow quickly.

  • I have a lot of licenses (Vray,finalRender, Maxwell, Octane, Arion) after going thru them I end up using more Vray (final renderings) and now Enscape (schematic design, Design development and to talk to clients and consultants) .....Twinmotion looks good only for the libraries, but other than that I wouldn't spend that much for it.

  • We are all great at critiquing aspects that most clients wouldn't even notice. I do it all the time...spending ages on something the client just walks past without even noticing!


    Granted GI is important but usability, good work flow & functionality are what makes us the most profitable. I don't charge my clients extra for slightly better GI but if I am able to create images or a VR environment more quickly then it is of value to me.


    I have spent a lot of time building VR environments with unreal and know the strengths of having a system based on that engine. The question is whether having a fully animated tree, a moving car or being able to make it snow is worth the extra cost of a fully featured system.


    I am interested to see their pricing structure because at the moment Enscape is the best value for money especially when it includes 1 click VR.

  • Granted GI is important but usability, good work flow & functionality are what makes us the most profitable. I don't charge my clients extra for slightly better GI but if I am able to create images or a VR environment more quickly then it is of value to me.


    Right - no client will ever say: "I like the design but the indoor GI looks bad".

    However: Even if nobody can tell you why an image looks fake, everyone feels that it does. I am convinced that at a presentation, details matter. Else, you could use your Revit or SketchUp viewport - nobody would do that. Because you do not sell plain planning data. You sell your vision about a future project. A lifelike rendering fills the gap between now & the future and makes your vision become real in the clients head.

  • I am also testing out Twinmotion 2018 (on the PC). First impression is that it is not as seamless as Enscape for Sketchup (and agree with the above comments.)Enscape developers have done a fantastic job on this.


    Won't be replacing Enscape for ease of use and quality.


    My question:

    Where Twinmotion becomes interesting is that they our touting OSX/Mac support (native).

    Where is Enscape on that development? Is it possible ( I assume it is)? I'm going to test it on OSX next.


    (Our company runs hundreds of SKP license on Macs. minimal PC. I know that as soon as I have shared what it can do, it is crossed off as a tool because of the platform.)

  • norbertsf Great to hear that you don't replace Enscape ;)


    The Support of MacOS won't be realized in the near future. We're focusing more on optimizing our features and improving the support of our basic software solutions.

  • And speaking of improving things, you guys are doing an incredible job of improving the software (which is what matters) but you should really think about revamping your homepage too. I feel like it seriously undersells what Enscape is capable of currently (because it's outdated obviously). I'm guessing it's something that's already on your radar though

  • "Efficiency factor" (speed vs. quality) is the first and the last point of choice going towards Enscape3D! Less time spent on environment and material definition - gives space for "extra detailing" of scenes, that makes the difference today. "Touch of details" used in the scene makes the scene alive, "visitor friendly" more than ideally correct global illumination, or absolutely correct reflections...