Posts by Thomas Willberger

    I hope Enscape product development is not merely driven by "demand". If Steve Jobs had the same way of thinking, we wouldn't have the iPhone.

    Most statements that begin with "But Steve Jobs/Elon Musk/Bill Gates said, ..." do not work in general, because they are cherry picked exceptions. Since exceptions are outliers to a rule, we mostly stick to the rule "implement what people want". If we see great opportunity along the way, we evaluate that too for sure. ;)

    Thomas, if they are "Minor improvements" why have we been waiting so long for them to be fixed or updated

    From your point of view, this "minor improvement" might be the most urgent one. For other users however (and Enscape has hundred thousands of them), other minor improvments are the most urgent one. That's why we can't implement all minor things simultanously & immediately, but we're investing and trying hard to become faster and better.

    The transparent surface rendering is limited to a certain number of layers. If you make the glass one-layer only, it will be solved. Anyway, we will rework the transparent surface rendering in the future and also ensure proper refraction.

    If you set it to normal glass with no opacity and an average specularity, it should look like this. Please share your material parameters for the glass sphere so that we can advise.

    Collaborations drive the best outcomes

    Sometimes yes, but in this constellation it wasn't the case. We had numerous technical difficulties in the past with the RPC software. And when we were confronted with the decision by ArchVision if we implement the newest RPC software or have to remove the existing implementation, we decided that we want to invest the time in making the Enscape asset library better rather than supporting third party asset libraries.

    The Enscape asset library has 1950 (vs 2500 @ RPC) assets with v2.8 and we are continuously adding more with no additional cost for all of you. We will also improve certain other shortcomings like custom asset imports, variations or better looking proxies in the floor plans in the upcoming versions.

    The clouds have a rather subtle animation even when the time of day is static. But other than that, the only way to animate it is to animate the time of day. The animation of other visual parameters like the clouds offset etc might be added in upcoming releases.

    Any idea how Enscape3D could benefit from this tech?

    It wouldn't improve any of Enscape's shortcomings.

    1. Enscape is not used with zBrush-sculpted meshes that have billions of polygons. Enscape is well optimized to handle huge numbers of polygons, so this is very rarely a bottleneck even in ambitious SketchUp or BIM scenes.
    2. Enscape's path traced GI lighting system operates on a very high and scalable quality level + also runs on non RTX cards with a special compatibility path. Frankly, a gaming engine has to handle much more complicated cases (think of particles, breaking geometry etc) but for Enscape, path traced GI is the best way to go.

    One thing that seems to work fairly well is to increase the clouds density so the sky lighting is more diffuse. The main issue is then the sky is cloudy in the background. Here's a request for developers - can you have a sky that's cloudy in only one region of the sky (so you can have clouds behind you, but see blue sky in front of you.)

    Tuning down sun intensity while having a low cloud density has the exact effect that you describe.

    pristol There is little "magic" going on in Enscape here, that we could tweak in order to reach your result. Given the intensity of the sun, HDRI environment and materials the lighting that's being calculated is physically defined and will look quite the same across most raytracers (approximation inaccuracies aside). Therefore, the only meaningful options you and we have is to tune the skybox and sun intensity in order to match the look you desire.

    You can "fix" this by increasing the sun brightness. Auto exposure will then make the shadows look darker in turn. The sun brightness depends on various things, so it's possible that different renderers have slightly different sun intensities.

    The sun brightness slider doesn't seem to make much difference since it appears to bring down the sky brightness proportionally.

    This should not be the case, especially not with a loaded HDRI skybox.