Posts by renderwiz

    So.... I offered before but a solution to the impossibility of the "big vs small" details issue could be a "Global Scale" adjustment which happens on the fly within Enscape. Since I can manually adjust the scale of my scene in Sketchup and find an optimal size for a particular defect, I assume you guys could do the same on your end during the conversion. If this were a slider named "Shadow Bias" or some other nomenclature, we would have the ability to deal with stuff like this.

    VahePaulman ...thank you for updating us on your workaround.

    I would not consider it "solved" though as there are times when we want 0% sharpness.

    Demian Gutberlet ...are you suggesting he should remodel the wall and add more polygons to avoid this artifact?

    The facets that are shown in the model would not be considered "low resolution" for that size wall and curvature, considering industry standard "smoothing" hides the facets quite acceptably. We almost always rely on smoothing for models that would otherwise show their polygons.

    Is this type of artifact a known issue with Enscape? Is the solution to remodel surfaces with more polygons? If so, can you provide some specific guidelines as to what is considered "too low" polygon for Enscape to handle well?


    This looks a lot like what I see on lower resolution people models.

    The smoothing of the geometry seems to only apply to the diffuse coloring. The shadowing reveals the facets.

    There is likely a more technical explanation, but the short answet is... This looks normal from what I have seen Enscape capable of with curved surfaces and shadows.

    Would love to be proven wrong with some magical setting though!

    This is simply a known limitation of Enscape currently. If you need perfectly clean glossy (ie. blurry) reflections, look to another renderer until it is (hopefully) sorted out.

    My understanding is that this xml file contains is the actual image data, likely in an uncompressed format, which is why its so big. For panoramas, Enscape is choosing to save in a proprietary format where image data and metadata are saved as a single xml file, rather than save a "standard" image format such as png, plus a separate metadata file per image.

    We are then required to "export" a standard image format. After you export your standard format image such as png, if you have no need of the metadata (which I do not) you can delete the corresponding xml file.

    Demian Gutberlet does this sound correct?

    Demian Gutberlet how about let us save a standard image file, such as png directly? When rendering multiple images the extra step to export can be very inefficient.


    Those ideas were just random thoughts for achieving the same goal... any of them may help, and you guys obviously may have your own.

    I really just wanted to provide user experience feedback on how the notification system.


    In the past I have enjoyed the feature of being notified when a post I have commented on receives a new comment.

    However, as the practice of "+1s" (I'm guilty of this as well) and "Your vote has been recorded" has grown, the notifications seem less useful to me.

    A few ideas:

    1) Discourage the practice... encourage the use of the "Like" button. This has the added benefit of keeping a tally in the list of posts to show relative support for topics. Perhaps there is an additional even more obvious way of indicating this type of "Like" and therefore encouraging its use.

    2) Enscape team could avoid replying "Recorded the vote" this would both discourage the practice and possibly avoid another irrelevant notification (possibly bc not sure if it triggers a notification)

    3) Can a User disable the default notification behavior for posts in the Subforum "Ideas and Requests"?


    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.