Posts by Pieter

I wrote a tutorial on it: https://bimchapters.blogspot.c…w-to-make-leaves.html?m=1

I would also love to see people with disabilities who are not in a healthcare setting. E.g. people with disabilities doing every-day things, both in business and casual attire.

You need to upload at least one .gltf and one . Bin at the same time. Could you send a screenshot of what files you are adding?

Also, enscape has a first beta of their official enscape creator out. You might want to give that one a try, because this workaround will not work with enscape upcoming release unfortunately.

Clemens Musterle Now I'm worried about the video textures that are on the roadmap? That is going to be available in Revit....right?

There is a topic on the forum with people asking to have an option to override materials on assets. Maybe you can add your vote there?

Changing materials

Seems like we're at a standoff

Maybe this can be solved with the material overrides on assets idea? Changing materials

Quote from Clemens Musterle

Rest assured, we're very much aware of that situation and not really happy with it ourselves. However I can assure you that there won't be any difference on a functional level regarding displacement maps with what you can achieve with the Revit material editor, even though it will require some workarounds as mentioned before.

I totally get all these points and I'm glad you also see that the current limitations with Revit/Enscape materials is not ideal, and deserves a better long term solution.

The last time this was discussed on the forum, I think developers were of the opinion that the Revit material integration was fine as it is. It's good to know that that's no longer the case.

Also, just to sum of some of the limitations with the revit material editor compared to Enscape's:

- less control for metallic (which prevents us from doing things like this)

- less control for reflection/specular

- less control for height of bump/normal map

- no normal maps on all types of materials

- no tint on all types of materials

- no re-use of maps (for example albedo as bump)

- no auto creation of mask when loading png with transparency

- no fine grass controls

- no fine water controls

- no option to have wind overrides on materials

- soon: no fine controls for parallax mapping

Or in other words: Enscape material editor is in a lot of ways superior to Revit's. As things are going, this list keeps growing.

I do hope that there is going to be put a design forward to improve the situation in the long term. I have a few suggestions on how this could be achieved, so let me know when this is being discussed and I'm happy to share

Quote from Clemens Musterle

Revit users will most likely get an "implicit" integration similar to the approach in this Preview (maybe with the option to enforce it via certain filename suffixes) for the 2.9 release.

Ah. That's a bit disappointing.

I understand why Revit hasn't gotten the Enscape material editor yet, but this was exactly what I was afraid of when it was announced that Revit would be the only platform without an enscape material editor: more and more great features being added to the material editor while Revit users are left with a subpar experience. We see a similar problem with grass and water control.

I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but please don't forget about us Revit users.

Quote from Clemens Musterle

It'll get a fully fledged material editor integration and details like support of 16bit heightmaps and self-shadowing are not part of the Preview yet

Will Revit users also have access to these material features? We sure could use them, but we don't have the Enscape material editor in Revit (yet?).

How about using parallax mapping in custom assets?

Yay for displacement (parallax) mapping and continuous animations as an option!

+1

Another one that would be nice is 'workplane based'. You want that off for a lot of site elements, but for accessories, that should almost always be on (no one needs to host a book to topography, but hosting to the top face of a table is very common).

Quote from JoH

We would not be able to guarantee the necessary quality of the assets to be used with Enscape in every hardware setup. So this could lead to a huge bulk of uploaded assets with different quality standards and maybe even violate 3rd party licensing.

True, but this is also true for the Sketchup warehouse. The quality varies greatly and from time to time, some pirated stuff shows up on there. But still it's a incredibly popular tool for designers. I would argue that probably 90% of the sketchup enscape renders that are shared on this forum have warehouse stuff in them.

The sketchup warehouse also offers some simple tools for people to separate the good stuff from the bad. For example they show you the number of downloads, show the number of polycounts, ... Also, there's a way to flag pirated content.

But maybe this is something for the community to set up?

Demian Gutberlet I agree a slider would not be a good solution, and that asset colors should be within pbr ranges. However, could it be there's some mistake with the people textures? They really look off.

We have noticed this as well. Micha point regarding the gamma correction on the textures could be a possible explanation and should be easy to fix.

ssilvenar could it be you renamed the files (for example the .bin file) AFTER exporting from blender? Keep in mind that names of gltf resources are baked into the .gltf file. Renaming any of the resources (textures or .bin file) after exporting will break the links. You need to make sure you get the names right when exporting from blender.

Quote from ssilvenar

Ok so I'm a failure at this for some reason. I have tried doing this from a blender export and I've tried with a max export via Babylon...when I create the asset using the creator and place it in the scene, the Enscape view doesn't show the model, I only see the low res obj in the scene. any advice from those of you who have used this successfully?

Can you share your asset library?

I would like to suggest to only make them shared when you load an asset from the library into a family (and leave the current behavior when you load an asset from the library into a project).

The reason: once a family is shared, you cannot unshare it. And shared families will show up in all <type> parameters of that category. Maybe not a big deal for planting, but once you change the category from planting to furniture (which we end up doing with most of our furniture), that becomes very problematic for us.

You have to add at least a .gltf and a .bin (you can multi select in that window). If you add a .gltf only, the "wrong filetypes" message will come up.

Quote from JDSD_Arch_01

Thanks Pieter,

Yes, I'm using the Box option for the moment and sizing i accordingly.

I'll try merging the three objects to see if that produces a different result.

Enjoy your holiday - let me know if you find anything else that might be causing the weirdness once you circle back around.

Thanks for all your effort on this app.

Display More

Sorry for late reply, holiday+catching up on work took longer then expected.

Were you able to figure out the issue with the .obj?

Quote from Sheik

The tutorial suggests those are mandatory, when they're in fact not.

I've created tens of assets and I've never a) joined all the meshes into a single mesh or b) created the layers and they've always worked pretty well.

I never meant to make it sound like the layers were necessary. The layers (collections) are just there to help organize the example file.

If tinyAnya7 is still looking for the collections, they are in the top right corner of Blender (but again, this applies only to example blender file that is used in the tutorial, for your own assets you can organize it however you see fit).