Does it go away when you turn off your ceiling? Is it always at the same spot on the screen, or does the effect move when you pan around?
If so, then most likely the problem is caused by a ceiling plane that's not thick enough!
An app for the Oculus store from Enscape would go a long way towards a great setup and user experience. You could each fire up a Quest and experience the environment at the same time. This is the way Prospect Pro works, and we've been using it quite a bit as of late - connecting several people at once who are all in their homes. The issue here is that the Enscape scene may have to be substantially reduced in quality for stand-alone mode.
However, I've been pushing to simply get away from a VR experience whenever possible. For large groups, it's never going to be that effective. There's simply no substitute for broadcasting your scene on a huge monitor and taking folks around the space. Or...in keeping with the latest 'at home' virtual meetings, firing up Microsoft Teams and doing a walk thru screen share. Teams has an incredibly great compression algo that keeps frame rates very high indeed.
Well.....to be fair, exterior shots out of Twinmotion can look as good as anything from Enscape. Even though TM is 100% raster-based, the GI for exterior scenes is pretty good. It just takes a little more effort. lol.
It's when you get within the INTERIOR environments that raster-based engines simply fall apart, and you have to spend quite a bit of time and fiddling to get them looking great. Even then, unless you are next to a large wall of glass that allows a huge amount of GI to illuminate the scene, you have your work cut out for you.
The biggest challenge to Enscape's visual fidelity is going to be when TM finally incorporates realtime ray tracing support. However, if we go by the awful state of RT implementation we see in Unreal, we may be waiting awhile.
The big advantage that Enscape has over everything else is the unbelievably SHORT TIME it takes to get an image looking amazing.
Tnx very much, Demian!
I'm having an issue with some SketchUp models in which the mesh is somehow visible - especially in lower lighting conditions and shadow areas.
I've tried many things to fix this:
Welding the vertices together with the Vertex weld tool (Both in SketchUp and back in 3D Studio Max).
Turning on/off smoothing, and tweaking the settings.
Applying different materials.
Doing a pull on some of the polygons in order to give more thickness.
This isn't for every model - only certain ones.
Has anyone seen this issue before? I can't find any info out there.
These are superb. Question: The glowing cubes/candles in the 3rd scene on the dining tables. How did you achieve that effect? I've done it with bitmapping, but can never get it to look as good as a classic 2-sided V-Ray material....!
If you don't mind my asking, do you still work in Lumion as well? If not, why did you stop using that platform?
I dont see reason to explain again advantage if proxy would be linked to internal component- shure the best way to have choise in enscape for both ( although external proxy useless for me). iToo, Skatter and other agree with me
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I'm agreeing that the option to keep the proxy source within the master file would be a nice option to have.
The fact remains, however, that Sketchup - at it's very heart - is a vector based drawing program with rasterisation used in shaded views, and it's developers have done little or nothing to improve the performance with data heavy scenes over the years. How do we know this? Revit uses nearly the same vector/raster system yet is capable of handling far more data presented on the screen at any given time than SketchUp. it's exactly the same with stand alone engines like Unreal, Lumion, and Twinmotion. These are all still firmly in the world of vector lines with raster based graphics, yet can outperform SketchUp in terms of moving around a huge scene by an order of magnitude that's off the charts. I shouldn't HAVE to turn off layers in SketchUp. I shouldn't HAVE to rely on heavy use of proxies. I'm FORCED to because SketchUp simply sucks at presenting large amounts of visual data on the screen.
The notion that proxies are not there to keep the main model 'light' is incorrect. That is precisely why Chaos Group and one or two others first created the proxy system - to reduce polygon counts in your working model. Xref linking was another, far older method. Keeping the source models in the same scene was a recent development from companies like iToo Software and their Forest Pro/Railclone Pro plugins. Just like with Skatter, that was done so that it was EASY to select the source models in order to build your garden, lol. It was not done for any other reason. In fact, with iToo Software many folks simply turn those source trees and grass models in their scene to Vray proxies themselves. Leaving the source models there was never done for any sort of 'model management' reason.
The notion of having the option to keep source models in the scene is fine, as is the idea of a much better proxy management system.
I'm staring a new thread on this issue because I think it's important to discuss, and probably easy to implement a solution. The problem is this: The native FOV for panorama images is set too high, which results in a distortion in the image that makes every room or environment seem much larger/deeper than reality. Presenting an unrealistic proportion and depth to clients is unthinkable - especially when dealing with interior spaces.
This issue is not the result of what kind of QR code or hardware you may be using. While some devices have the ability to tweak FoV, you are NOT actually changing anything in the source image and only further adding to the distortion. Again, the answer is not 'get a better QR code' or 'try another device/cardboard viewer'. The answer is to fix the incorrect FOV setting within Enscape.
The best way to illustrate this is to show an example! I've put together two images in a Yulio experience:
The first comes from V-Ray, and has a FOV of about 55°. This is a very close approximation for how most human beings would perceive that office space if they were standing in the real thing.
The second image is from Enscape, with an FOV of probably 80°. The difference in depth is astonishing, and unrealistic. Those of you that may not do interior architecture + design yourselves may not think it's a big deal but, trust me, incorrectly representing the scale of something in the architecture and design world is a horrible practice and one we try and avoid. The goal here should be to get that FOV correct so that clients aren't thinking their spaces will be significantly larger. Because of how we perceive depth, this problem is usually compounded with even larger volume interior spaces (deeper office environments, ground floor lobby spaces, convention center halls, etc).
The default exe file FOV experience from Enscape is even more drastic. That FOV for exe files should automatically default at around 55°.
Here's the link:
Before looking around, just use the forward/backward arrows for a quick depth comparision. Think of what you're seeing like this: The depth difference at any view is probably around 5' to 8' difference. That's not good.
I would urge the Enscape development team to strongly consider a new default, or the ability to set the FOV ourselves. Tnx
Coming back to this because the FOV should be a pretty easy thing to tweak in the code. Or...is there the possibility of some kind of override we as the users could implement with just one or two lines of script within a pref file?
No this is built 100% in Sketchup. Revit is way to slow / cumbersome for Early Design work like this. This was done very early (first week or so) of the design process.
Tnx. Very nice, indeed. What's your face count in SketchUp? Did you need to use Enscape proxies for any part of the architecture to keep the SketchUp file manageable?
dvsone1440, great scene. Could you briefly share you workflow when dealing with a large building in SketchUp with Enscape? Are you going from Revit to FBX into SketchUp? Is it built 100% in SketchUp? Curious. Tnx
Wondering the same thing myself about the rectangular lights. Unreal recently added these, and don't have any size restrictions - which is nice. Very similar to V-Ray plane lights.
I've stopped using straight Enscape lights altogether, and stick with IES profiles. For instance, a rectangular plane light traditionally in render engines is designed to give you the opportunity to add a large swath of lighting all in one go... Enscape rectangular doesn't work that way. However, an interior flood style IES profile - such as these from Focal Point lighting - work great. The spread is far greater than any native light from Enscape.
Doh! Well I feel stupid. I thought I had moved those lights after I changed the cove depth. lol. Thank goodness my under cabinet lighting was in the right place! heh.
I'm not seeing the flicker anymore with the cove lighting.
Just to be clear, there are two separate issues that manifest themselves on two separate Enscape versions:
2.6 The under cabinet lighting exhibits the rectangular/tile flicker, but the cove lights aren't bad (though some flicker)
2.7 Preview the under cabinet lighting is fine, but cove lighting is showing through the ceiling. No flicker that I've noticed.