Posts by burggraben

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.

    Another thought: Ideally I wouldn't have to work with non-physical light at all, but only with physical lights which will actually be present in the project. This isn't a game where my main goal is to build something that looks great and can use all the lighting tricks. Looking good is a great secondary objective, but primary is to build as close to reality as possible and simulate that reality. I'd like light sources to only be light sources that will be present in the real-world building and I'd like Enscape to give me an idea if there's a too-dark corner or if shadows are going to be weird. Like a true light study.

    Thanks for the pointers. I'll do some reading and try to improve on my indoor lights. I have none on the upper floor in that model yet, but on the ground floor there are a bunch. In the screenshot below you see 6 ceiling lights. Each of these is a light source found in the standard Revit catalog with a color of 4230K and 60W at 80lm/W, so that's is 4800 lumens x 6 light in that kitchen = 28.800 lumens. That room should be bright as the sun. I understand it doesn't translate exactly from the setting in Revit for "real world" lumens, but it would be nice if it would be close. I'll look into your tips for non-physical lights, thanks!

    Here's the problem I won't be able to solve via optimization though: The lighting is very different from desktop to VR. I'd like to be able to optimize my lighting on desktop and then see the same thing in VR. Keeping to different set of lighting is too much work.

    Below is the same scene viewed on desktop (left) and VR (right). Both on the same settings, no raytracing, quality Ultra.

    VR-ready is meaningless. Just because a card can run Beat Sabre, doesn't mean it can run Enscape. All very application specific, specific to YOUR model, YOUR textures, YOUR geometry and how much time you spent optimizing it.

    Not sure why you're running a workstation-class card if you want to do VR. It favors stability over performance for 3x the cost.

    To me Enscape VR is more like running a game, and less like calculating a protein structure prediction in research, so I choose a bleeding-edge consumer-grade hardware over enterprise-grade one-generation-behind 3x the price hardware.

    Especially since the 40 series consumer card come with lots of GPU memory (24gigs) another reason to choose enterprice GPU became mostly irrelevant.

    Just to illustrate: At timestamp 0:22 you can still some noise near the top edge of the wall, with raytraced-sunlight disabled. It's minor compared to the issue in the video above, but probably the single greatest quality defect in ULTRA. Never seen this on desktop, why only in VR?

    The biggest issue (after noise) on ULTRA VR is lighting. For some reason areas not directly touched by sunlight are super dark in VR. They're somewhat dark-ish on desktop, but in VR they're just way too dark. Areas which are completely enclosed like the workshop demo above are okay, because the exposure auto-adjust.

    But for areas where you have mixed exterior and interior, the interior is way too dark, even if the interior has additional artificial lighting. Moving into these dark areas, adjusts the lighting, but it's an issue if you want to see the whole thing.

    Artificial lights don't help much, even if they are given ridiculous amounts of lumen in Revit. Turning up artifical light brightness to 200% (max) and sunlight down to 20% in Enscape setting, help a little, but there an issue where non-sun lighting is way darker in VR than on desktop. Even without artificial lights, these room should be lit up by sunlight. Raytracing is off (noise issue), but it doesn't brighten things up when it is on either.

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    burggraben , thanks for your reply, budgetwise a 4090 means 850 euro plusmin on top, which is quite a bit.
    Is in your opinion the 4080 not capable of dealing with VR?

    If you only want to run Medium quality a 4080 might be fine, but it depends on your project size too.

    In my opinion VR needs the best of the best, because it

    A - need to render more things (two eyes)

    B - lower FPS in VR are a lot worse than lower FPS on desktop (breaks immmersion, some people even get sick below a certain FPS threshold)

    You could get a cheaper card if VR isn't your focus, save the money for the next generation. We are halfway there to the 5090

    Regarding the noise issue occurring when switching between rendering qualities while ray-traced sun shadows are enabled,

    It can only happen when ray-traced sunlight is disabled, because with ray traced sunlight enabled the noise is there from the very start.

    The perfect workarund for now is to simply, start in ULTRA and do not switch quality. Simple enough.

    There still are some minor noise issue even with ray-traced sunlight disabled, but nothing compared to what you see in the video.

    Are you able to share if the noise is related to ray-tracing technically at all or if it is a completely separate issue that just gets accidentally triggered by switching quality during runtime and switching on ray-traced sunlight before the engine runs?

    Automatic Disabling of Ray-Traced Sun Shadows

    HOWTO use VR in ULTRA quality with version 3.5.6+202715

    I have discussed with one of your team members in a private thread, but wanted to share some public praise here, because you are seriously underselling this version (or maybe a recent previous version, but it still wasn't mentioned anywhere in the release notes). Sorry for all the red, but I need to somehow express how important this is to me and also offer some advise to VR user on how to make HIGH and ULTRA usable. There's a specific setting you have to disable.

    VR performance has drastically improved.

    To the point where I can now run ULTRA on current gen hardware (4090) with a stable 60-70 FPS, where previously HIGH and ULTRA were unusable and MEDIUM was the way to go in VR. I want to say again:

    This is huge. I can now do VR in ULTRA settings. I thought I had to wait until the 5090 before I can run anything other than MEDIUM in VR.

    In addition to a a general performance improvement, it is now way more stable frametimes. Even if I don't reach the max 90 FPS of my Varjo Aero headset like I do on MEDIUM, Enscape now runs a smooth 60+ FPS in ULTRA, without any serious dips to the downside, so it is very usable. Previously there used to be a lot of variance in framerates and serious stutter. Interestingly CPU usage jumps in HIGH and ULTRA, so it now makes sense for me to upgrade the CPU to the very latest, in addition to the GPU. CPU frametimes in MEDIUM are way below GPU frametimes, but in HIGH/ULTRA, the CPU frametimes are about the same as the GPU frametimes. There isn't much differrence performance-wise between HIGH and ULTRA now anymore, so I run ULTRA.

    There still is this annoying noise issue in 3.5.6+202715 which makes HIGH and ULTRA unusable quality-wise , but over two days of testing I finally figured out it can be fixed if you disable the raytraced sunlight switch.

    It is a weird behavior, where you get a lot of noise in an area and when you look at it for 15 seconds it clears up, move your head slightly and you have noise again. You can see this demoed clearly with the pipe next to the yellow Kaeser compressor in the video. Notice how this demo is in a completely enclosed room with artifical lighting, why is there even sunray RTX happening?

    Like I said, this can be fixed by turning off raytraced sunlight in settings. This works fine when starting up Enscape in ULTRA with Raytraced Sunlight disabled. However when switching back down to quality MEDIUM and then back to ULTRA, this problem appears again. You can see this demoed in the video. This is weird, because raytraced sunlight is a checkbox in settings, requiring an Enscape engine restart to be applied. Here however, it seem to be turned on just by switching quality?

    Maybe it doesn't have to do with the raytracing at all and it just a bug with some other cause that gets un-triggered by starting up without raytraced sunlight and then re-triggered by switching quality to MEDIUM and back to ULTRA?

    I any case. The current way to use VR on ULTRA is to have a 4090, and start the Enscape engine without raytraced sunlight.

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    We are currently still waiting on 3DConnexion to also implement a fix from their side with their next driver update release in particular when it comes to this particular problem which others experience as well. They have identified the cause internally already and said fix will be come with the 10.8.15 Windows Driver Release soon.

    Just update to their 10.8.15 driver and the behavoir is exactly the same. When opening a Revit view in Enscape the view becomes unusable in Revit. I still have to use the workaround to have dedicate Enscape and Revit 3D views, which works fine, but require careful clicking.

    Maybe we are not talking about the same bug?

    I saw in the release notes of the latest alpha that you split up the previous denoiser into a GI Denoiser and a Shadow Denoiser. Is that supposed to help with the issue from the thread or should I expect to see improvement in some other area?

    Thank you for the further reply and your patience burggraben .

    Our developers were able to find the cause behind this now, and we are currently looking into resolving this as soon as we can. I cannot say when exactly yet, but at this point thanks once more for the cooperation with troubleshooting this.

    Awesome, great to hear you managed to reproduce and find the cause. Finding the cause is always half the work to squashing a bug. :thumbsup:

    This is why there are only a handful games that have great graphics in VR. The effort it requires to get that level of detail cannot be afforded by small studios; and they know what geometry the use and optimize/bake it before shipping. Enscape has to deal with anything on the fly.

    Just an idea: Maybe Enscape doesn't always have to do everything on the fly. On-the-fly mode is great while developing a model and making changes.

    Once it is semi-finished, VR performance become more important than making real-time changes. It would be nice having a packaging-export-feature which would package everything for optimal performance. It could produce an unchangable exe or something. It would be fine if this process took several hours because it optimizes things, bakes lighting etc just like it takes a long time to compile a game.

    Just an idea. I know you probably don't have time for it, since it is an epic task.

    That is a controversial topic and I understand where you are coming from. In my previous role I was working on VR for mechanical engineers and they, too, wanted the best possible image and they didn't care about FPS; they just wanted to stay still and look at the point of interest. The point of controversy is that Enscape is designed to be real time and at least try to stay at specific framerates. If we provided that "real" ultra quality, then customers would think that the program is just bad because it can only produce 5-10 fps at the quality. Quality image in VR is just so hard to produce both in high fps and consistently.

    I would agree that real-time, high-FPS VR is the more important of the two for Enscape VR. Currently I run Enscape Desktop as pretty as possible and Enscape VR on whatever gets me to 90 FPS. VR is great to get a sense for how big a space really is, or to let someone stand in their new kitchen and see if the space between island and table is big enough.

    Having this as-pretty-as-possible VR mode would just be the cherry on the cake, but it would see much less use than 90-FPS-VR.

    On more question, since you seem to be very knowledegable about this (great to see that Enscape has some new devs with VR expertise):

    On VR Medium I get crystal clear 90 FPS, on VR High I get lower FPS around 50 or so, which isn't great but acceptable.

    There is another reason I don't use VR High and Ultra and stick with Medium. It's a little hard to describe, but I'll try. Whenever I turn my head to a new spot, the image is more grainy and the it take a couple second before it "loads" additional pixels and gets rid of some of that grain. Like a classic TV-show picture loading animation. It is distinct from the noise from the diffuse and specular reflections we discussed above, because that is permanent. This goes away after a few seconds or looking in the same direction. Any idea?


    Is the issue still present in 3.5.2? I could retry reproducing it then because I couldn't see anything close to that behavior before. What is the resolution that you are using?

    Yes it is present in 3.5.2. My resolution is 2880 x 2720 px per eye @ stable 90 FPS on industry-grade Varjo Aero headset. But this also used to occur on my much lower resolution consumer-grade Valve index before I switched. If you can't manage to reproduce I can test again on the Index. It seems to be GPU load independant however. There are certain geometries which just cause crazy CPU loads, but only sometimes, depending on how far you are from them, how long you have been looking at them, etc. With the table Revit it is pretty reproducible if you hover over it and move around.

    Did some more testing on this and the problem still persists. A box without holes doesn't cause any problems. It would probably take me houre to find out, how many holes are the exact breaking point and I am unsure if that would give you any more valuable insight.

    The CPU throttle goes red 100% on 16 cores. When you run a CPU profiler if should be very ovious which function needs optimizing.

    Of coarse you have to be able to reproduce it. I switch machines and GPU and am able to reproduce with the same file I sent back then. Could you give this another whirl?

    - VR is so much more demanding that desktop. Having 2 4k screens in VR doesn't mean that it will just take double time than rendering 1 4k screen in desktop. There are a lot of things that don't scale very well with resolution, so the GPU utilization doesn't scale as expected every time. For this reason, we reduce the VR quality by one level compared to the desktop quality; VR ultra quality is actually desktop high quality.

    Ahhh, got it. So that's why I don't see the bug where the Shelf 010 looks like a light source in the highest VR quality setting.

    Correction: Just tested it and Shelf 010 appears like a bright light source (but is probably technically hyper-reflective?) on Deskop high and ultra, but not is VR Ultra. So there is some difference between VR Ultra and Desktop High, which makes Sheld 010 behave this way in VR only.


    - In addition, it is not just GPU work that is doubled, there is a lot of processing on the CPU for the preparation of the GPU commands for each eye. We don't use any Single Pass Stereo technique currently to reduce the CPU overhead of the draw calls.

    Just googled and read your blog post on SPS and it sounds interesting. Any plans to use to to improve VR performance?

    I am usually not CPU bound in VR high/ultra. The CPU is typically bored, and a 4090 GPU sits a 99% on a high resolution Varjo Aero headset in high and ultra. (Medium is fine). There is only one CPU problem which I identified and reported, but it looks nothing happened on that front.

    Extremly high CPU usage in certain spots

    I just tested again, the issue still is present. Maybe you could try reproducing it again? I do have the simplified testing file still available which I sent to Demian last year.


    - The 90s TV effect that you see is actually noise from the diffuse and specular reflections in the scene. For VR we perform a lot less ray tracing calls to try to stay on a specific framerate and that shows in these areas. Of course we apply a denoising step on the ray tracing results but this can not be enough in some cases. That's why these are mostly resolved when you disable hardware accelerated ray tracing.

    Shame, it looks so pretty on desktop, but not pretty and very distracting in VR.

    I would actually still prefer if you have a "real" Ultra in VR instead of what we have now.

    Even with a 4090 currently I *have* to use Medium Quality to get 90FPS.

    But I'd like to something switch to Ultra to get the prettiest picture in VR. Currently that gives me 50FPS or so, but I don't use it because it looks worse than Medium. Ultra and High both looks worse than Medium in VR.

    I want a "real desktop quality" version in VR, even if I only get 3 FPS. I do architecture, so mostly I just navigate to a spot and looks at it with my head still.


    - DLSS is also a bad candidate for VR. DLSS produces weird artifacts that can be almost invisible on desktop but become very obvious in VR. I would suggest to keep it off because it can also mess with stereopsis of people with more sensitive eye sight. There are also people who don't notice anything at all.

    Shame, it seems to be a coin toss right now. Some VR apps / games work with DLSS, others don't.


    Since we will be resolving the issue of the washed out image in VR in the next version, I would like to ask you to try that version and come back to us with what problems still remain.

    Happy to.

    I would hazard a guess that some of the temporal rendering is not there in VR and that perhaps that settings are changed so that the performance is kept higher - as you need it really really high framerate to not feel awful in VR.

    From my experience, the opposite seems to be case. Performance in VR is worse than you would expect.

    When rendering a model at Ultra Quality on a 4k desktop @ 60Hz I typically have less than 25% GPU ultilization on a 4090 to render 60 frames / second.

    When in VR I need to render two 4k screens @ 90Hz, so 180 frames / second, which would mean that I should be able to render Ultra Quality with 75% ultilization or something like that. But typicall I can't and get 99% GPU utilization with 50 frames/second and need to drop down to Quality Medium to get my 90 frame / second with 75% GPU.

    I understand that these are only paper estimates and in reality it probably doesn't work that way, but still -- performance and rendering quality in VR seem to be worse than it should be, based on the good desktop rendering quality and performance.

    After some more testing: It is related to ray tracing. If I turn off ray-traced sun shadows, then the Shelf 010 stop beeing brighly lit and in VR the noise is noticaly reduced. When ray tracing is switched off entirely it is reduced again.

    So in essence ray-tracing doen't work in VR.

    Same thing with DLSS which works fine on desktop but not in VR. I wonder what makes VR so different. I figured Enscape would just use the exact same render pipeline, but render it from two different perspectives, once for each eye, but this doesn't seem to the case?

    Here's another image, showing the TV-noise effect in a situation where it is much less pronounced. However in real-time VR it is still very distracting because the TV-noise is constantly animated, making the scene very busy.

    Other things to notice: The lighting at VR Ultra seem very different from Desktop ultra.

    VR might actually be a better lighting than desktop if it werent for the TV noise.

    - On desktop the Enscape Shelf 010 acts as a light source for some reason on quality Ultra (not on Medium).

    - In VR the Shelf 010 is not a light source.

    - Light scattered across the floor from the door window actually looks better in VR than on desktop, but that might be because of the self-illumating shelf on desktop.

    - Shadows on wall in VR Ultra would actually look better than Desktop Ultra.

    - The chairs seem to cast a shadow in VR from the light from the door windows, but they don't on desktop.

    - VR Ultra seem to use way more resources than Desktop Ultra, even after accounting for the fact that VR has to render two images, one for each eye. That scene would use around 20% of a 4090 to render on desktop, but maxes out the GPU in VR and would probably need twice the performance a 4090 offers to render smoothly.

    Are the rendering engines fundamentally different in VR vs desktop? That scene looks very different in VR than on desktop, VR and desktop seem to have different bugs, and different performance characteristics.

    I am seeing some rendering artifacts when using quality high & ultra in VR, which so not exist in desktop-mode (at any quality setting) and do not exist in VR at quality medium.

    Generally in can only use VR in medium because of these artifcats. With a 4090 I could sometime use High quality performance wise, but the rendering artifacts are too distracting.

    What's the cause for these? They do seem to be worse when the lighting isn't 100% sunlight, but some artificial. Maybe more pronounced the dimmer a scene gets. However: On desktop the exact same scene with the same lighting renders crystal-clear, and when switching to VR mode , the rendering is very distracting. While wall, get a 90's TV noise artifcat animation. Pics (the color difference might be due to the fact that I have to adjust exposure and saturation to counter the current bug where VR is way too bright):