Posts by AugustR

    I ran into that problem too. Sounds like it may come down to your machine's hardware and the settings at which you are rendering at. I would recommend adjusting overall quality, as well as FPS to see if you get better results.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "jumps of speed", but...

    If you're talking about the fast portions of the video - did you preview the video path before rendering? I find that the path system tried to guess how much time you want between waypoints, but sometimes doesn't guess correctly and you wind up with particularly fast portions when the camera position doesn't move much between the waypoints. Previewing the path can give you a good idea of which areas are too fast (though depending on your machine the preview will overall still be slower than the final rendering), and you can adjust before rendering.

    If you're talking about the subtle but still perceptible "skips" that happen periodically - I had this problem with my machine, and I think it's simply an issue with the power of the computer. I bumped the quality down a notch and that problem went away. You can also adjust framerates to "lower quality" without actually lowering the quality - in most cases, you shouldn't need more than 30fps anyway.

    This has been mentioned during the 'preview' releases... I agree.

    Labels - Settings

    Thanks for pointing this out Gadget. I hadn't been looking into the preview releases.

    I agree with the comments there, and I see the reason to remove the extensive popups for clutter/ease of use... however I think the current implementation is even harder to follow for someone new to the software, especially with the scrolling of text.

    Personally, I support the idea in that thread for an "alternate cursor", or perhaps keep the little "?" buttons but require a click rather than a hover, so only if you're actually searching for the information do you see it, without compromising the readability of said information. I also agree that the more help that can be directly embedded in the interface (as opposed to having to go search online, which most users won't do. They'll just use the setting wrong and wonder why it doesn't work), the better.

    Why did you get rid of the "?" popups for the settings window? I understand that putting it at the bottom may be less cluttered, but I much preferred the mouse-overs for two reasons: 1) the pop-ups were right near the setting I was wondering about, meaning I didn't have to shift my view across the screen as much, so it's visually smoother, and 2) Now the width of the info is limited to the width of the window. Meaning, if the info text is longer, it does this painfully slow scrolling system that is awkward and makes it much harder to read. Obviously you can't speed up the scroll either as then it would move to fast to read correctly. I know this may seem like a little thing but I feel this new info system is absolutely a step backwards in terms of ease of use/understandability.

    It should be noted of course, that if this is what I find problematic about the new settings windows, then you guys have done a bang-on job with the new system. Really, it's great, and solves so many usability issues with multiple users and files. I think if you can fix this problem with the settings info pop-ups, then you'll be golden. Thanks.

    Demian Gutberlet Do you have any sort of estimate for a 2.6 release? I understand completely if you don't want to promise anything - I'm just trying to get a sense of timing (like is the release closer to a month out or more like another 6 months? A year?). I'm hoping to introduce Enscape to our wider office and get other employees here to start using it as I think it could be a very helpful tool. However I saw on the Development Agenda that part of what is coming is a Settings Overhaul, and if this is something that is coming sooner rather than later I'd prefer to hold off on the office-wide introduction so people don't learn one thing and then get confused a month later when the update lands.

    +1 for what it's worth. I'd also love to see the option to turn the assets into a all-black silhouette style object, particularly for people and vehicle entourage. For more study-style renderings the photo people are frequently too distracting. But 2D silhouettes in SketchUp are a pain to work with as even if you have "FaceMe" turned on they still don't cast shadows correctly.

    I would love it if this window was persistent. Frequently I will click onto another tool and then have to re-open and research for the items. I imagine the auto-minimizing is to keep the window from blocking the SketchUp window - however, if you have multiple monitors this is unneeded and it just becomes a nuisance.

    On a related note - while the asset window always auto-minimizes, the settings window not only does not minimize but always stays on top of every other window. Can we have this one able to go behind other windows just like all the other Enscape windows? Better window behavior consistency would be much appreciated.

    EDIT: I would like to add that frequently, pressing ESC does not bring the window back. This appears to be due to the fact that pressing any key or mouse button besides left-click exits the window, even if the "place Enscape object" mode is still active. For example, using Shift-MMB to pan, or just MMB to orbit the view while in this mode still exits the window (but not the placement mode), such that pressing ESC once you're done doesn't bring it back. This proves to be very frustrating to work with. At the very least, please have the window not close when activating view manipulation tools in SketchUp!

    tjasak It sounds like you're trying to use 2-Point Perspective to generate a Parallel Projection image, but these aren't quite the same thing. Parallel Projection removes the perspective element, rendering all parallel lines as actually parallel ad-infinitum.

    2-Point Perspective on the other hand maintains some level of perspective, but removes one vanishing point as compared to 3-Point Perspective (the default perspective for most 3D modeling/rendering software, as it is the most accurate to how our eyes/a camera works compared to the frame around it). This means all vertical edges that are parallel are rendered as such, which can help make an eye-level view look more "natural" (despite a 3-point perspective being more "accurate"). This is because your eyes are also always registering the frame of the image, which is always parallel, and seeing slight inconsistencies between these edges and the edges in the image can look weird.

    2-Point perspective breaks down however the further you rotate your view down or up. As it is distorting the view to keep vertical edges parallel, when you are looking up at a steep angle it will severely distort the image to maintain the parallel projection. Thus, if you're looking to create a rendered plan this system will quickly break down and create some strange visual results.

    This is why we all also want Parallel Projection (and the related axonometric/isometric/camera angle adjustments), so that we can have both options depending on what we are trying to render!

    Hope that helps.

    I'd like to give a +1 to this feature request. Having to save and load separate paths isn't too big of a deal, but it would be nice to just have them live in the file simultaneously. Just a little easier to work with.

    I would also like to add my support to this request. Would be very useful if I need to go back and edit lights in the future.

    I would also like to see the size of lights increased. Why are we limited to 3m for linear lights, for example? I frequently want to create light sources that are much longer - so I have to add a bunch of lights in a line. and since you can't snap the lights to each other it can get messy. Yes, you can copy lights, but again, why not just let us make larger lights?