Can’t we all get along? Why the breakup with Archvision RPC?

REMINDER! If you encounter any issues with Enscape (e.g. crashes, installation problems) or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team directly through the Help Center or by using the Support button as detailed HERE! Thank you for your understanding.
  • OK Enscape let’s hear your side of the story on the @ArchVision SDK. You have a decent start on assets, but it’s no where close to what Archvision has. RPC content plays nice with our documentation while your assets look beautiful in rendered images only and have to literally be turned off everywhere else. Can you work it out? Why didn’t you renew the SDK with them? You’ve got plenty of exposure and customers, why not just pay for it? Is the price unrealistic? Dropping support for this BEFORE you have a viable replacement isn’t a good move for your customers.

  • Angleo - Well said. I have been using Archivision for several years and their content is top notch. There is plenty to go around and I strongly urge Enscape to go back to the table and try and work something out.

  • Also, well said! RPC's have been a crucial part of my workflow since around 2005, regardless of what rendering platform i am using. While the quality of the Enscape assets are pretty good, the current selection in certain areas is much better with RPC's. Please work this out.

  • Ditto on the above. I've never been a fan of the RPC > Enscape lottery. Project leaders are bemused when people in wheelchairs transform into standing positions, when people change race, gender, age, and also when our native Eucalyptus trees transform into European species.

    Despite this, the great technical synergy already in place should be embraced and developed. Collaborations drive the best outcomes!

  • Collaborations drive the best outcomes

    Sometimes yes, but in this constellation it wasn't the case. We had numerous technical difficulties in the past with the RPC software. And when we were confronted with the decision by ArchVision if we implement the newest RPC software or have to remove the existing implementation, we decided that we want to invest the time in making the Enscape asset library better rather than supporting third party asset libraries.

    The Enscape asset library has 1950 (vs 2500 @ RPC) assets with v2.8 and we are continuously adding more with no additional cost for all of you. We will also improve certain other shortcomings like custom asset imports, variations or better looking proxies in the floor plans in the upcoming versions.

  • I 100% agree with Thomas here. Better to invest the development time/resources in Enscape's library and capabilities, which we can all benefit of. Many offices don't have archvision rpc licenses, but we all have access to Enscape's library.

    variations or better looking proxies in the floor plans

    Tell me more ;)

  • I'm just going to add here that I've always been upset with the way that Archvision feels that they can have ownership/dominance over the only proxy file format within Revit....

    I truly believe that all of this should be OPEN SOURCE, and that is the only way it can really thrive - so however Enscape can align itself with an open-ended community format where EVERYONE develops assets and adds them to a huge repository of assets - then we will.

    Enscape should work towards their assets being renderable in everything, and transition all of this to a free community database. That is the only way you'll defeat Archvision.

  • Couldn't agree more with mattendler

    Good news is that the Enscape asset library supports .gltf , an open source format developed by Chronos, the same guys from Opengl.

    In my opinion Gltf is even better than .fbx because although everyone can use Autodesk's sdk to implement it, .fbx is still owned by autodesk and in essence it's still a closed format.

    We all win by having open ecosystems.

  • This really is unfortunate and will cause us to re-examine the viability of both Archvision and Enscape in our workflows. I am certain there are two sides to this issue, but it makes me wonder what other functionality might be revoked in the future. Customers are not being served well here.

  • Not having the ability to use RPC's is a game changer. There is not enough content in the Enscape library to suffice. Also, a lot of the content is more European in nature as apposed to US based. The RPC people may not look as good but the objects did and frankly the people do work. We were converting a lot of our own content into RPC's to enhance our use of Enscape with our projects. Without the ability to use RPC's in Enscape will cause us to reconsider our choices.

  • Those that have known me for long time know that I don't carry water for anyone except the customer. For example, I love Revit but I've raised strong objections when I believed Revit / ADSK wasn't doing right by the customer. I have great meetings with the Enscape teams and sometimes I strongly disagree with direction and I'll continue to do so. With that said I believe this decision by Thomas / Enscape is in the best interest for Enscape customers.

    - Archvision is a 30 year old company with 2500 assets

    - Enscape is a 5 year old company that now has a dedicated asset team responding to customer requests and has partnered with other companies to provide nearly 2000 (and growing) assets as part of a subscription at no an additional cost.

    - Enscape is opening the door to creating custom assets, removing an enormous bottleneck to AEC workflow:


    20 years ago having high resolution rendering assets was a differentiator. Today high resolution assets are a commodity that can be downloaded for free or even a small price at enormous scale. For example, check out SketchFab: 3million users and over 400k assets that are high-quality 3D models for VFX, game development, VR/AR, architecture and animation.

    I know the senior management and leadership at Archvision. I work with them, see them, eat with them and drink with them at industry conferences. I realize my opinion may not be appreciated but I believe that on balance my bias is customer facing and will stand on its merits. Technology is rapidly evolving and Archvision will have to wrestle with a legacy business model.

    Near term, perhaps Archvision could technically document the process of placing RPC content in a custom local library for their customers (per above blog post). In the future perhaps an Enscape API could allow Archvision to assume responsibility for developing, implementing and supporting a plugin that works with Enscape. I think this would be in the interest of Archvision customers.

    I hope this helps address your concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions.

  • Hey everyone-

    Not a frequenter on this forum, but was watching this thread as we, too, are customers of both Enscape and Archvision RPC, so we were a little curious "what the heck" was going on. I dont have much to add that hasnt been said already, but just a few notes:

    1. I dont truly believe the "overall count" of the assets in each ecosystem are whats paramount here, but just to clarify (as a stickler for getting the technicalities correct): There are at least 4,500 assets in the RPC all access environment. The only reason i know this, is- much like many of you are doing with the Enscape Assets currently- 4 years ago i got annoyed with how the RPC Dashboard inserts and names its families. So we took the time to place every single one of them, and then save them to our library as individual RFA's, named and classified with object data the way we want them. Currently, there are 4,701 families in that directory. There is a chance some of them are duplicates, but our library is better curated than most, so im going to doubt there are 100 or 200 dupes in there. Having said that:

    2. I also am in the camp of "Im disappointed," but i see how this affects people varying, depending on what the group does for a living.

    We arent a viz house, at all. We essentially jump in to Enscape to review models with clients, to talk through modeling techniques, and designs, and things of that nature. We plop the RPC's in to give context, pretty quickly. Given that the RPC's still work in Revit, and we can use the same RFA's we have currently to port to Assets from Enscape in the future, we can (for the most part) skirt by this unharmed.

    BUT... Paying for all of the RPC's, and having them NOT work in Enscape, is a bummer. If push comes to shove, and RPC really does stop working in Enscape in the future, there is a good chance we will just stop using RPC, because its something we do for flash and flair now, but its not a requirement for what we do for a living.

    If you are a visualization house, i imagine the RPC ecosystem is a bit more important, since it covers a LOT of products, and not just Revit/Enscape. Given there are a lot of viz engines AND a lot of asset engines now, i guess these sort of "divorces" are bound to happen, as vendors try to "corral" us users in to camps of Chevy vs Ford.

    3. To speak out of turn (because its what i do) i really think cooler heads need to prevail, in this situation.

    I understand both camps POV: Enscape wants to focus on their asset ecosystem, and Archvision wants their "shiny new stuff" to be present, not their "older stuff." Hell, usually a vendor in Archvisions position does the opposite: Forcing "friendly competitors" to stay a few versions BEHIND, so their native product has a leg up.

    ALL of that to say, i originally reached out to both vendors, as i was concerned there was actually something improper going on, and didnt want to be funneling money to a company that was doing something they shouldnt be doing. But both companies kind of told the same story, and it sounds like its just "we dont agree, so were gonna make our stuff not play together anymore."

    As a single user at a tiny company... That sucks to read. Makes me second guess both products, honestly. But i guess im glad im not in visualization, so it doesnt affect us ALL that much. :)

  • Sometimes yes, but in this constellation it wasn't the case. We had numerous technical difficulties in the past with the RPC software. And when we were confronted with the decision by ArchVision if we implement the newest RPC software or have to remove the existing implementation, we decided that we want to invest the time in making the Enscape asset library better rather than supporting third party asset libraries.

    The Enscape asset library has 1950 (vs 2500 @ RPC) assets with v2.8 and we are continuously adding more with no additional cost for all of you. We will also improve certain other shortcomings like custom asset imports, variations or better looking proxies in the floor plans in the upcoming versions.


    I appreciate the big focus on expanding assets within Enscape dramatically over the last year. However, total number of assets doesn't mean anything unless they are useful for the type of project you are working on. For example, we use very specific autos and trees in custom residential work which is why the Archvision content is worth it for us. Making this a more gradual transition would help. Can you explain what happens in 2.8 with RPC content that is already in a file? I know Archvision's software has been extremely buggy, but it has been the defacto standard within Revit for a very long time, so by default our Revit template standards accommodates this workflow.

  • I agree that Enscape shall just ditch RPC BUT bring on the custom assets import.

    We pay for ArchVision but look at the quality of assets we have - retro 1995 people?

    I doubt if anyone can really use it as presentation material.

    Couple of years ago I got in touch with people at RPC, asking for feature request regarding their asset creator. i was then met with silence and no response.

    Archvision just feels like a company that takes customer money yearly and does nothing, well at least from 2017 - 2020. Nothing new has been delivered.

    I would say people shall move on from this 30 years old tech. Enscape Team, why not you come up with a solution that allows RPC content for a like for like replacement?

    Say people in wheel chair @RPC --> people with wheel chair in Enscape.

  • Personally I'm not happy. Enscape could have at least brought the functionality of the custom RPC element online before forcing this separation. We're going to have a gap in workflow while you guys are trying to figure all this out? From a business perspective and a personal attempt to have empathy, I understand all the arguments. But all the empathy doesn't change the situation you're putting your customers in. Our illustrations are taking a hit... and my confidence in you guys to be focused on a developing a product that is taking steps FORWARD is taking a hit. This is a step backward.

    We won't be upgrading enscape for a while now because of this. Autodesk has been making arguments like this to Architects for years, taking our subscriptions and developing things that help Autodesk gather more market position in other industries, but all the while forgetting about the development of features that Architects (their core business) find valuable. We've learned that Autodesk's request for empathy and patience is, in the end, them making excuses for not wanting to prioritize the needs of their core customers. This feels a LOT like that.

    PLEASE do not become like Autodesk. We tolerate it because there aren't any real alternatives to Autodesk. Its not quite the same with Enscape.

  • Biggest issue here to me is repeatability of renderings. This is not the first time that assets have become unavailable. I asked at that time, and was assured it would not happen again. If Enscape is willing to do this with RPC, who is to say this won't happen later with other assets in their library. This is the #1 reason to use your own assets in renderings, and not rely on those provided "for free" by Enscape. I put "for free" in quotes because there is a cost... that cost is the time you will have to spend down the road, unexpectedly, when you are asked to updated an image or animation for which the entourage will need to be recreated.

  • Alright, so we'll do the following:

    For v2.8, the RPC support for Revit will stay as it is.

    We will try to improve the experience and compatibility starting with 2.9 but will take care that it won't be compatibility breaking.

  • I think thats a great move.

    I hadnt considered the points that bleonard and renderwiz brought up, but since reading their responses, its been stewing in my head... Because we place the RFA's, but we also use them just in Revit (in Realistic mode) for some exports. And for those, all of our current RPC work great. If it meant having to have an entirely different library for that, it would be a bit of a hardship.

    The good news is: If we (my group) had to just stay on Enscape 2.7 long term, that would be sufficient.

    We love Enscape, and we love Archvision... But both are ancillary to our main processes. Which means its more important they not create hiccups or hardships in our workflows. TBH, the moment this whole "situation" started, we had to start considering replacements for both tools, because... we just dont have time for this sort of stuff.