This is completely expected behavior for screenspace rasterization. There is no way to "fix" this, while retaining the rasterization method. Enscape has certainly improved mirror reflections over time but it's always going to suffer the same issues over and over again.
The only way forward is raytracing with GPU render engines and it's obvious the industry is moving this way with great momentum concerning hardware and software development. Want it right now? Go and check out TwinMotion since they recently implemented raytracing. Plenty of shortcomings with TwinMotion but I definitely appreciate the developments and increased competition.
As far as Enscape not being suitable for "pro renders"... That's a silly overstatement. Plenty of pro's using it on the daily for professional, paid work. It's up to the pro to choose the correct tool for the job. If you require perfect mirrors and Hollywood-level CGI, you need to be nowhere near a GPU realtime render engines until they go full-on raytraced. You need to be CPU based and using Vray.
If you could tell us more about this inherent problem with rasterization. I'm interested.
I have indeed difficulties to understand why geometric elements disappear completely in the reflections.
Moreover I wonder about the philosophy of a software that wants to be "realistic with real light sources" according to the devs.
While it uses a rasterization rendering engine.
Knowing that the rasterization imposes necessarily sources of lights not physically real to reach a correct result.
So it's all and its opposite. It's hard to understand where this software stands.
About switching back to software like Vray. This is indeed exactly what I said. I'm switching back to Vray because the problems encountered with Enscape are too disabling for MY practice.
I am an architect and in MY field of creation I have to use mirrors every day.
If the mirrors can't be rendered in a correct way, it's a brake on the use of this software in MY field of activity : Architecture.
The same goes for the management of light etc...
I have made it clear that the software can be useful in some cases. But clearly not in my field of activity in an efficient way. The time spent in post production and the necessary retouching are insurmountable when working on complex scenes. (multiple reflections, complex lighting etc...)
Concerning the development of the software. I am very circumspect when I see that the devs are calling for ideas to implement new functions instead of improving those already present. Before adding functions that will be used by 1% of the users, it would seem to me coherent to have a robust base.
I love the concept of real time rendering and I love enscape... But its a pain in the ass in (too) many cases.