Reminder: If you encounter any issues with Enscape (including 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.

    I can't keep Enscape up to date and I am forced to stay on version 3.3.2.

    All later versions crash immediately when I try to open the asset library

    Enscape and Sketchup both close instantly when I click on the "assets library" button.

    I have tried ALL versions after 3.3.2 and they all crash.
    I've tried the 3.5 preview. Same issue.

    shotokan  BOTOSAUR , just to let you know (IF you have a GPU built into your system which supports hardware ray tracing), we've greatly improved upon our reflections for the upcoming release of Enscape 3.4, but there'll also be another preview (version 4) released later throughout the day which already allows you to test those improvements for yourself. I'll add the link to the preview announcement here as well, later on, so stay tuned. :)

    The preview version crashes at 5% when I load any SKP file.
    I rolled back to the previous stable version.

    Unfortunately, our clients are VERY picky.

    The 3d renderings are used to validate each detail...

    And we can't do otherwise with a certain type of client.

    No worries in the first phases of the project. Enscape allows you to present images and panoramas very quickly. Which is a big plus.

    Unfortunately, going back to another renderer to make the final render realistic is very time consuming and impossible for our company.

    It is easier to start directly on the most adapted software. Even if it means presenting less images, less quickly.

    It would just be amazing to be able to switch from Enscape to Vray seamlessly without having to redefine all the materials, lights etc...

    The best of both worlds.

    Again, Enscape is an incredible program.

    It's a shame that such a good program is tarnished by such annoying details.

    Big firms using Enscape widely during design phase and for conceptual renderings and it is perfect for that. Also VR presentations or standalone exes are big plus. Then final renderings are usually done with other softwares that uses CPU such as Vray or Corona. If you are expecting perfect looking mirrors, i think Enscape will never provide that because amount of realism added to Enscape will make the software heavier which will cause firms to stop using it during the design phase because of its lightness. Imo they need to bring an offline renderer inside and keep the real time same quality. Like Twinmotion you can press R(path tracing button) and achieve something close to CPU renderers.

    Yes, I agree.

    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.

    Devs are talking about realistic lights. And you can't have any realistic reflections.

    Lights are horrible in reflections.

    Missing geometry in reflections.

    Metallic materials are reflected as plain white material. Etc etc...

    So realistic.

    Enscape is OK if you don't use any mirrors or reflective materials.

    Seems like a big issue for a "Realistic renderer."

    I agree. The problem with light reflections (unable to turn off) is almost unbearable and especially infuriating when I read the attitude by one of the founders of the program about "inventing" light sources and such. What makes the author of that quote about reflections from years ago think that using only "real" light sources does in fact give a more realistic result; all of these light sources are "invented." Not sure what Demian means by "missing objects" in reflections; I assumed Botosaur was referring to light reflections you don't want? (Maybe not, but that is my problem.)

    I also am enjoying Enscape so much, but for working in interiors, this problem of not being able to turn off a light reflection is just driving me crazy. The attitude expressed by Willberger about "inventing" lights and "magic' lights" seems so anti-rendering. I worry an attitude like that might not bode well for the future, not sure. This comment was made years ago, but still nothing has changed and a lot of people have asked about it. If goal is to make a program that' easy to use, why demand people use absolutely "realistic" lighting in every scene (which again is not at all necessarily more realistic-looking in the end?) Thanks.

    After the joy of discovering a very fast software. I am forced to switch back to Vray.

    Unfortunately, for the moment Enscape is not able to compete with rendering software such as Vray.

    There are too many problems and constraints that impose a huge post production time.

    - The problems with mirrors and reflections are unbearable.

    - The lack of flexibility when it comes to managing light sources is a real headache.

    Impossible to present images to a client without spending a lot of time in post production.

    The software is very good for presenting simple and fast scenes. For the rest I go back to Vray which is much more robust.

    I have no doubt that the software will improve in future versions.

    But unfortunately I have the impression that the development priorities are not the right ones.

    There are some really insurmountable problems for a professional use that should be corrected as soon as possible.


    Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I can't get the scale of the carpet and grass materials right.

    I usually work in centimeters on sketchup and it is impossible to get realistic scales for the height of the grass for example.

    The scale is much too large.

    The only solution is to work in millimeters which is very annoying.

    The scale of the stranded materials should be adapted to the scale of the drawing.
    Or at least, it should be possible to reduce the scale much more. Because even at the minimum the strands are huge if you work in CM.

    Left image : cm
    Right image : mm
    Size of the carpet : 120x160cm

    I try to create my own assets. And I always get the same error when I save.

    CF image attached.

    I tried to change the names and paths but nothing works.

    Also it is impossible to place the textures correctly in the asset editor.

    The only way to get correctly positioned textures is to import the model in .obj. But unfortunately each polygon creates its own texture. That you have to modify one by one. Impossible if the object contains hundreds of polygons.

    As it is, it's difficult to use this editor which seems to be very little advanced in development.

    The simple fact that you can't edit the light power and light source in the lamp assets etc. is really annoying.

    Having to place lights inside assets blindly is incredibly complicated and time consuming.

    At least, provide objects that directly integrate the light sources.


    Will there ever be a way to modify the assets?

    Like changing the materials, colors etc...

    That would be really useful and would allow more flexibility.

    As it is, the assets are only useful if they perfectly match the project in their basic version.

    It's quite frustrating to see that an asset matches in form but not in materials. And to have to do without it for that reason.

    You really need to implement an asset editor in Enscape.