Posts by German Vallverdu

Reminder: If you encounter any issues with Enscape or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team through the Help Center or by using the Feedback button as detailed here.

    Thanks for taking an interest in the topic.


    I share the images, family and parameters of the material.

    In the images place the lamp with the active IES or without them and only with the led material.

    The image "2022-07-23 Material Lamparas 10 Con material 130000 cd m2 y luz IES", is in my opinion the best. But in that image the LED material has 130000 cd/m2. If I turn off the IES you can see how the LEDs emit light and also participate in the illumination of the image. I don't know how much this affects the performance of the program, but I think two forms of lighting are duplicated with the same lamp.
    In another file that I upload later, this duplication of lighting generated a problem in the video files.
    It is not something serious.
    What I see is that by raising the intensity of the material that it illuminates, so that the lamp looks more real, this lighting superposition is produced.

    There is a material that looks illuminated, but does not emit light.
    That is to say that at night it has its own lighting but does not participate in the lighting calculation, without radiating light to other objects.
    Many times the lamps have their own file or way of lighting, but it is necessary that the light source be illuminated, without that object being the one that produces the light.
    Is there such a material or parameters in a material that allow this effect to be achieved?


    Para los que entienden en español, por si la traduccion no fue correcta.


    Existe un material que se vea iluminado, pero que no emita luz.

    Es decir que de noche tenga su propia iluminación pero no participe del calculo de iluminación, sin irradiar luz a otros objetos.

    Muchas veces las lamparas tienen su propio archivo o forma de iluminar, pero es necesario que la fuente de la luz se vea iluminada, sin que ese objeto sea el que produce la luz.

    Existe un material así o parámetros en un material que permitan lograr ese efecto?

    +1

    Sería genial poder programar desde dinamo o paiton y usar Enscape. Logré hacer un video animado con movimiento de los objetos. Pero tuve que renderizar una por una las imágenes en el Enscape. Si se pudiera llamar al Enscape con un comando podría hacer un simple programa de animación en Revit sin demasiado esfuerzo. Básicamente lo que hice fue colocar una variable tiempo en los objetos y luego cada uno hacia algo. Se movía rotaba. Cada objeto tenía eso. Cambiaba la variable tiempo de 1 a 2. Y volvía a hacer otra imagen. Pero bueno era de 1 en 1. Algo muy denso.

    El camino correcto


    Primero quiero contar que me alegro de volver a usar el fantástico Enscape después de un año de espera.


    Con el camino correcto quiero compartir mi opinión respecto al desarrollo futuro del programa y la dirección que toma este.


    Llevo usando el Revit por mas de 15 años, casi lo empiezo a usar antes que autodesk comprara el programa.


    En todo ese tiempo de uso uso y probé muchos programas para hacer imágenes, desde el Blender, Artlantis, Cinema 4D, Twinmotion, Lumion, Lumen RT, hasta los que vienen integrados con el propio Revit, en si muchos.


    Una de las principales desventajas de todos estos, era que debía trabajar en ambos programas y que las modificaciones echas en uno u otro no se reflejaban en ambos.

    Es cierto que muchos o la mayoría fueron mejorando esta fluidez de trabajo entre el Revit y el programa que elegía para hacer las imágenes.


    Pero con el Enscape, el tema era otro, era lo que siempre quise tener, un programa que se dedicar pura y exclusivamente a hacer bien imágenes y a hacer también aquellas cosas que el Revit no podía. Cuando me refiero cosa que no podía, básicamente a poder tener personas 3D y vegetación 3D de buena calidad, pero no al resto de los objetos.

    Después por fin conseguí con el enscape un programa que me tomara los materiales del Revit y las Familias del Revit, tal cual yo las uso. Que maravilla!!! Por fin, los planos, las tramas todo se da de forma lógica!!!!


    Pero ahora, el enscape, comienza a tomar un rumbo extraño.


    Comienza a querer ser un programa medio independiente.

    Es decir que empieza a generar cada vez mas formas de trabajo en donde esa asociación fantástica entre ambos programas se disuelve.

    En que noto ese alejamiento.

    Primero el tema de la librería de objetos.

    Si bien Personas 3D y Vegetación 3D es algo que Revit no hace ni digamos bien, todo el resto de los objetos que enscape tiene en su librería pueden ser familias de Revit.

    Y aquí no hay un dato menor, mientras las familias de Revit tienen capacidades necesarias y compatibles con el programa como, se parametrizan con diversidad de tamaños, materiales o formas, distintos niveles de detalle, la posibilidad de verse bien en planos, los objetos de enscape carecen de todas estas virtudes.

    Eso hace que su uso sea limitado y por lo que vengo leyendo en los foros algo similar pasa con los otros programas como Sketchup y Archicad.

    Entonces por que alejarse del Revit, esto puede jugarle en contra al programa, ya que otras opciones como por ejemplo Twinmotion o Lumion, tienen librerías mucho mas modidicables, pero siempre con el concepto de que lo que se coloca en ellos no sale en el Revit y se pierde por completo la vinculación.


    Después esta el tema de los materiales.

    Pasa algo similar, esta muy bueno cuando aporta algo que el Revit no tiene, pasto, por ejemplo, pero no veo que al menos a mi me sea muy útil, cuando el control de las propiedades se comienza a disociar del programa.

    Me parece mucho mas lógico que siendo el Revit un programa basado en parámetros y teniendo la increíble libertad de poder agaragar parámetros nuevos del usuario, los parámetros que no existen los agregue enscape. Ya sea a los materiales, como a los objetos, de esta manera el vinculo entre ambos programas se fortalece y el flujo de trabajo es mucho mas lógico.


    Como ejemplo les dejo un video animado que hice con enscape y Revit, en donde una sola variable Cuadros, me permite controlar toda la animación, sin necesidad de que Enscape haga un modulo de animación.

    No se mucho de programación, pero si simplemente los cuadros de un video en enscape se pudieran relacionar con una variable del programa, o hacer una imagen se pudiera llamar des de dynamo para relacionar cambios en el dynamos con una imagen en el enscape ya tendriamos un enscape capas de hacer videos con animación.



    The correct road


    First I want to say that I am glad to use the fantastic Enscape again after a year of waiting.

    With the right path I want to share my opinion regarding the future development of the program and the direction it is taking.

    I've been using Revit for over 15 years, I almost started using it before autodesk bought the program.

    In all that time of use, I use and tested many programs to make images, from Blender, Artlantis, Cinema 4D, Twinmotion, Lumion, Lumen RT, to those that come integrated with Revit itself, in itself many.


    One of the main disadvantages of all these was that it had to work in both programs and that the modifications made in one or the other were not reflected in both.
    It is true that many or most of them were improving this fluidity of work between Revit and the program that I chose to make the images.

    But with Enscape, the theme was different, it was what I always wanted to have, a program that was dedicated purely and exclusively to making images well and also doing those things that Revit could not. When I mean something that could not, basically to be able to have 3D people and 3D vegetation of good quality, but not the rest of the objects.
    Then I finally got a program with the enscape that would take the Revit materials and the Revit Families, just as I use them. Wonderful!!! Finally, the plans, the plots, everything is given in a logical way!


    But now, the enscape, begins to take a strange course.

    You start wanting to be a freelance medium show.
    In other words, it begins to generate more and more forms of work where that fantastic association between both programs dissolves.
    In which I notice that distance.
    First the subject of the object library.
    While 3D People and 3D Vegetation is something Revit doesn't do well, all the rest of the objects that enscape has in its library may be Revit families.
    And here there is not a minor data, while the Revit families have necessary capacities and compatible with the program, such as, they are parameterized with a variety of sizes, materials or shapes, different levels of detail, the possibility of looking good in plans, objects of enscape lack all these virtues.
    That means that its use is limited and from what I have been reading in the forums something similar happens with other programs such as Sketchup and Archicad.
    So why move away from Revit, this can play against the program, since other options such as Twinmotion or Lumion, have much more modifiable libraries, but always with the concept that what is placed in them does not appear in Revit and the link is completely lost.


    Then there is the matter of materials.
    Something similar happens, it is very good when it contributes something that Revit does not have, grass, for example, but I do not see that at least it is very useful to me, when the control of the properties begins to dissociate from the program.
    It seems to me much more logical than being Revit a program based on parameters and having the incredible freedom of being able to add new parameters from the user, the parameters that do not exist are added by enscape. Whether to materials or objects, in this way the link between both programs is strengthened and the work flow is much more logical.

    As an example I leave an animated video that I made with enscape and Revit, where a single variable Frames, allows me to control all the animation, without the need for Enscape to make an animation module.
    I don't know much about programming, but if simply the frames of a video in enscape could be related to a program variable, or to make an image it could be called from dynamo to relate changes in the dynamos with an image in the enscape we would already have a enscape layers to make animated videos.

    It would be possible

    In order to have better reflections in the mirrors.

    A new material could help, with a parameter that allows controlling the distance even of the objects to be reflected.

    In this way, this material could be used only in certain cases, where it is necessary that some nearby objects are reflected but all the rest are left aside in the reflection process.

    There are images that only need to reflect portions of an entire project. The rest of the project is unnecessary be part of those reflections.

    513/5000

    It would be possible

    In order to have better reflections in the mirrors.

    A new material could help, with a parameter that allows controlling the distance even of the objects to be reflected.

    In this way, this material could be used only in certain cases, where it is necessary that some nearby objects are reflected but all the rest are left aside in the reflection process.

    There are images that only need to reflect portions of an entire project. The rest of the project is unnecessary be part of those reflections.

    Hi, I wanted to comment on the use of Revit and Enscape.

    For me, the biggest advantage of using Enscape, compared to other programs, is the good integration between both programs.

    The possibility that Enscape directly uses the information of Revit materials and other objects directly makes its use very practical.

    In the case of the objects Enscape has, this integration is not good.

    The reason is that unlike the integration you have taking Revit materials or lights, the objects Enscape uses look great in the images and the Enscape interface, but very bad in Revit.

    The objects look so bad in Revit that it makes it impossible to take them for use in views or plans of Revit.

    This generates that its use is limited only to the images, where they look really good.

    Not only can they not be used in views or plants, it is also not easy to place them with precision, since their geometry is not the real one.

    Since using Enscape I noticed constant improvements.

    The program really is very good.

    I think that the lack of integration between the objects of Enscape and Revit can be decisive when choosing another product.

    I understand that there is also a great limitation in Revit as it does not yet have an adequate use of UV mapping and that this can be one of the causes of incompatibility.

    I would appreciate that Enscape objects are represented in a more appropriate way to be able to give them a much better and proper use.

    A change that could also be included, is the possibility that the objects are placed by surface or work plane, not only on one level, this allows to place objects much faster and in the correct position.

    Objects such as vehicles or people often have to be placed on planes that are not horizontal.

    Cars on sloping streets.

    People sitting on the surface of the place where they sit.

    The plants on land surfaces, remaining vertically.

    All are easier to place if it is the surface that they take as the basis of the placement.

    I apologize if the translation is not entirely correct, I use a translator and my basic knowledge of English.

    Thanks for your attention.

    hello Demian Gutberlet

    Thanks for your quick response

    The image is in ultra quality, both for preview and for the final render

    I could see in other files that the reflexes have improved considerably and I understand that they are limited when the distances are considerable

    In the example I sent you I am concerned about the bathroom sector

    In that case, nearby elements are those that are not reflected.

    I am going to do a couple of tests and I tell you again how the images were.