Posts by Colin.Magner

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.

    The screenshot function is great, but you can easily lose track of where images were taken.

    It would be great if each screenshot was accompanied by an image of the map view for the full building, so that after walking around large buildings for a while you had a record of where you took the screenshots.

    Have just installed 2.3 to test it out, and noticed that when adjusting the focal point I now see a visual indicator (a white band cutting through the model) which I don't recall seeing previously. This is great and makes setting the focal point so much easier. I didn't see this in the 2.3 release notes, is it new or did I just miss it before?

    Hands up - more of a Revit question than an Enscape question, but does anyone know of a way to change the material applied to an element in a specific view, rather than in the model as a whole?

    I'm using Enscape to visualise concrete reinforcement, and would like to give the rebar some context. My choices seem to be (1) Turn off the elements enclosing the rebar, (2) modify the concrete material to be transparent, do my renders, then change it back to avoid affecting drawings etc, (3) do a post-process blend.

    I'm not looking to achieve the blend effect (rebar.jpg) - this image is just to demonstrate the benefit of giving the rebar some context.

    I'd be happy with being able to override the materials applied to the walls and floors in a specific view, but can't see a way to do it.

    Ideally I'd like it for all scenarios, as per other image settings. I'd envisaged Enscape continuing to do what it currently does, with the adjustments applied to the resulting image. I didn't see a need for it to be anything other than fixed for a whole video.

    I would find it useful if there was more control over exposure through the inclusion of a levels and/or curves control. Being able to adjust the overall exposure, ambient light and contrast don’t give me enough control, as the overall contrast levels are very high.

    Being able to tone down highlights and bump shadows in a way I’d do in lightroom would be a great help.

    Hi Kaj,

    Your image is exactly what I was wishing for, thanks! I'll have a look and see what's going on with the materials in the model I'm using, because currently there's nothing being reflected.

    Is it possible to get the Enscape atmosphere to show in reflections? Being able to set a real world location to asses glare internally is great, and we'd also like to use it externally to assess sun reflections, e.g. I'm approaching the building from a particular angle, is sun reflection an issue for pedestrians, drivers etc.

    Saw v2 running on a GTX1060 yesterday with a v large model and it was silky smooth and v. impressive.

    Doesn't change my view on 1.9.6 vs 2.0.0 performance on the same PC, but apart from giving me an appreciation of what some of you are seeing, it is also not what I *need*! 1.9.6 wasn't silky smooth on my PC, but on Ultra I would guesstimate I got what appears to me to be an acceptable framerate.

    "If you like the lighting in 1.9.6 then stay with that version."

    That card and laptop will never be able to run enscape (newer versions) with speed.

    Your point wasn't ignored, it's just not 'sustainable'! The download for 1.9.6 is no longer available (or at least anywhere I can see), and where does it leave us with support in the long term?

    You last point illustrates how easy it is to miss points. The whole thread is about the difference from one week to the next with the same hardware. No warning of increased system requirements for the new version, and no settings in the new version that can replicate the previous version.

    Incidentally, I was also careful to check the hardware requirements during the purchase process and can't see anything that suggests a Quadro M1000M is not suitable in any way. The only mobile chipset indicated as being unsuitable is an AMD chipset.

    Thanks, but I don't want to invest in a new mobile workstation in the near future to replace one that's only about 4 months old.

    I deliberately didn't say in my previous post "Yes, it's a laptop with a mobile Quadro", although I did type it and then delete it. So, yes, it's a laptop with a mobile Quadro, but it ran 1.9.6 absolutely fine. I don't remember being warned when purchasing Enscape (after a successful 2 week trial of 1.9.6) that about a week later a new version would be released which would need me to also buy a new laptop.

    Sorry if that sounds like it's worded harshly, but I keep having to reiterate that exactly the same PC ran 1.9.6 absolutely fine. The only difference leading to performance and quality issues is the 'upgrade' from Enscape 1.9.6 to Enscape 2.0.0.


    Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, work suddenly got extremely busy and I haven't had a chance to follow this up. I can't find a PM with your details on, if you can send one with an email address I'll send you the Revit model.

    For the benefit of the thread the hardware specs are:

    HP ZBook Studio G3

    Windows 10

    Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @ 2.80GHz, 2808 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)

    32GB ram

    Quadro M1000M with 4GB dedicated video memory, access to 20GB total memory, Driver version 373.06

    I've set the BIOS to disable the embedded Intel gfx to force Revit to use the Quadro

    The laptop is connected to a HP USB-C Dock, which in turn has 2 external monitors attached, so in total the Quado is running 3 screens, 1 @ 1920x1080, 2 @ 1920x1200

    The Revit dataset isn't particularly big - the combined A/S/MEP models come to 420MB.

    I'm with Victotti all the way. Enscape 2 is giving me a real concern in regard to performance and image quality, and when I purchased it 2 weeks ago I wasn't expecting this! To be clear, I think Enscape is awesome, and still recommend it to people but with the caveat that they should try the demo first. With 1_9_6 I recommended Enscape without reservation.

    I've attached a document comparing the same model with versions 1_9_6 and 2_0_0 on a range of quality settings. There appear to be so many changes from 1_9_6 to 2_0_0 that it's hard to know where to begin. With 1_9_6 I could set it to Ultra and happily run around with decent image quality (matching low), then when I stopped I'd get a nice little progress bar while the image was refined (where's the progress bar gone?). With 2_0_0 I'm expected to settle the for the low setting? I may as well use Navisworks for that. If I set it to the higher settings when walking around movement is very jerky, image quality exceptionally grainy, and dark! When you stop the refinement takes place, but unlike 1_9_6 which literally was refinement, with 2_0_0 the image transforms from a dark grainy preview to a lighter detailed image, more representative of what you'd expect. There are just too many differences between the quality settings with 2_0_0 to settle for a lower setting, unlike 1_9_6.

    It's not reasonable to throw around arguments like you need to speculate to accumulate, or just use lower settings. I have no problem with investing in the right tools for the job, but in this instance the upgraded tool has significantly downgraded what I can do with it. Don't ask me to run with the low setting!