Posts by renderwiz

    Nice results! Subtle but effective. :)

    I agree... It would be SUPER NICE if we could have more control over where lines are shown in Enscape. Currently we are required to adjust the geometry (similar to how ElZoel describes) which is very inefficient. I believe this is already a request, but just want to make sure it is understood.

    import your own Assets with 2.9

    To avoid confusion for newcomers... we currently can use our own 3d library files (ie. fbx) just not animated one.


    The "Assets" that Demian mentioned is simply the ability to have your own elements show up in the Asset Library.


    To add to the confusion, Enscape has recently begun introducing "animated" grass (and I think leaves) This is much simpler to implement, so I would not take this as a sign of they will support animated objects any time soon.

    Biggest issue here to me is repeatability of renderings. This is not the first time that assets have become unavailable. I asked at that time, and was assured it would not happen again. If Enscape is willing to do this with RPC, who is to say this won't happen later with other assets in their library. This is the #1 reason to use your own assets in renderings, and not rely on those provided "for free" by Enscape. I put "for free" in quotes because there is a cost... that cost is the time you will have to spend down the road, unexpectedly, when you are asked to updated an image or animation for which the entourage will need to be recreated.

    Demian Gutberlet Is this a known limitation? (flickering when using batch rendering of views vs camera paths as shown in the attached GIF)


    Using the batch function has several applications which are not possible otherwise with the standard camera animation system. I am planning to use this on an upcoming project.

    +1


    There is currently ruby being used by Enscape for Sketchup which a skilled scripter could make use of. It would be great if we could at least get a rough list of current methods, etc. In some cases what is currently exposed would be useful.


    I will also add... I have continued to evaulate other rendering options mainly because of the lack of interest in user customization, community development, scripting, etc. There is no way for the Enscape team to anticipate or respond to all needs. The Sketchup scripting community is a perfect example of that process. They are what make Sketchup a great tool to use and would greatly improve usability for Enscape if encouraged.

    heinrich.boldt Good idea, but consider that it should be applicable to all host applications. If Enscape does allow animation, I hope it is more generic in nature. That way, the same steps that we use to rotate a door on its z axis x degrees starting at frame 10 to y degrees at frame 40 could be applied to any object. This would a) make it more universal for host packages, and b) make it flexible to be capable of rotating any object in the scene.


    While I hope Enscape will eventually allow for this type of animation I won't hold my breath. It will take significant effort, and this type of functionality exists nowhere else which indicates it may not be feasible.


    As a workable, interim approach I suggest the following.....


    .... there are already free animation packages out there (ie blender) and export formats that allow animation to be included (ie. fbx). Why not simply allow us to import that animation data? This same process could also be used for animated cameras.


    If we wanted to make it easy to access for less experienced users an imported animated asset could be controlled within Enscape to start its "animation" at frame X. This would make it possible for either Enscape, or others, to offer "animated" library items, such as doors, which could be "controlled" inside of Enscape with minimal UI requirements.

    AFAIK Its a law of perspective, not a shortcoming in the program. No renderer that I know of allows for a scaling factor for a 360 panorama (skybox).


    ...but I have been wrong at least once before :-)

    Not possible to just scale it automatically... Its like asking to scale a photo to make it look like you were standing further away.


    However you can hack it in some cases (when background is essentially flat amyway) by editing your skybox in photoshop and tiling/repeating the background mulitple times (to make background smaller)

    I like the back curved wall and the curved ramping walkway. I want to see more of the element to the right.


    The curved ramp seems to want to be more detailed / or contribute more to the space.


    The relationship of the tables / seating to the ramp seem arbitrary. Shouldn't they be influenced by the curved ramp?


    That handrail is not code compliant (sorry couldn't help it)


    If you are choosing viewpoints... this one is a bit awkward.... possibly wider angle will allow the curve to read better? What happens off to the right?


    Need a better texture for the ground. Definitely needs to be scaled down if brick.

    It would be nice if Enscape could save time of day and camera position in the render settings. That way it would be much easier to make reproduceable rendering. However, I don't think this is likely to happen.

    I believe it is inevitable that Enscape will mimic what Lumion, Unreal, D5, etc do with "Scenes" that save all render settings, and a "Timeline" that allows one to arrange the "Scenes". It seems very popular and has strong advantages. It also fits right within Enscape's "ease of use" philosophy. I am not really a fan of "quasi-video editing" within a rendering package, but I suspect that I am in the minority with that opinion.

    However, just one more question for me better understanding this issue: Why do you remove the material from being applied to the face, and then apply it to the component again? Where's the benefit in that?

    Kaj Burival I can provide some insight on this for sketchup. In sketchup the preferred way to apply materials is at the group/component level, and leave faces with a "default" material. The reason is that sketchup automatically propagates the top level materials to any sub-groups/sub-components, and then to faces, which have a "default" material applied. This is a very powerful feature in sketchup. One can apply different materials to the top level of a component and create different looks for the same component. It is also just a quick way to change materials of a group without having to drill down to the faces, make a selection, etc..

    If we could have separate brightness for visible hdr vs lighting/gi hdr we would have a way to fix this when using hdr as well.


    There is even a photographic technique that produces a similar effect... using a polarizing filter. So it would still be considered a "photographic" phenomenon for the purists out there.


    On making comparisons with Vray.... Realtime rendering is simply different than nonrealtime, it seems illogical that we can expect similar results. The only logical comparisons right now seem to be realtime technologies such as Lumion, Unreal, Twinmotion, eevee, etc. Feel free to ask, to match non realtime but its not a "bug" or "problem" that Enscapes output doesnt look like Vrays.