Posts by renderwiz

Please cast your votes in our two ongoing feedback polls here and here!

    Thanks very much for the responses.

    Simon Weinberger

    I was referring to the constant nature of the speed of motion and camera rotation. Sketchup starts its motion and camera rotation at full speed and ends at full speed. You are correct that the camera translation is not in a straight path. I assume this is what you mean by roll.

    Jonathan Knoefel

    My example of sketchup was only for clarification but it apparently failed miserably ;-) My goal is to match the motion I was getting before with Enscape. I cannot achieve that with the current camera system. Before motion and camera rotation were constant and now they are not. I have developed production workflows that depend on the type of motion Enscape was using before. Is there any way I can match the old motion between two points?

    If you need me to produce an example using both I can, but currently I am slammed so it will take me some time. It also requires me installing 2 different versions of enscape which I am hesitant to do while in the middle of production. I am sticking with the old version for now.

    There are many applications for this functionality. The one I am using it for currently is to add animated objects to an environment created in Enscape.

    Thank you,


    Thanks for the reply.

    I believe my question was not clear. Here is another way of asking.

    With Constant option between 2 scenes, is the motion intended to be exactly like Sketchup's default motion between two scenes?

    I am seeing a difference which looks like a non-constant rotation. The rotation is exhibiting an easing.

    The old 2 point animation method matches sketchups motion exactly.

    Is this the intended function for the new animation system or a bug?

    Thank you,


    Can anyone confirm if the animation option "constant" with the new animation system is producing constant camera rotation? My tests with Sketchup and the last preview version ( release candidate) for a 2 point animation showed that the camera rotation was not constant... and instead was a slow, fast, slow effect (easing). The camera movement seemed to be constant.

    If you set up a 2 point animation where the 2nd camera is both moved and rotated to a look at a different angle, it should be obvious. Try viewing the same path in sketchup whose motion is constant and there will be an obvious difference if you are experiencing the same.

    My use case is the following.... Enscape does not produce material id passes for animation, or allow for animated textures (for tv screens, etc) Both can be achieve by duplicating the animation path and exact fov / framesize in another animation package for those elements only, and using the Enscape animation as the main beauty pass. However, this can only be achieved with a truly constant motion.

    I posted this as a comment on the Preview Version thread, but it was not responded to and that post is now deleted.

    Is this expected behavior for the constant option?

    Thank you,


    I would like to add that in my experience the best archvis animations are made up of simple motion paths edited together.... and these are all produced with animation packages capable of very complex motion such as 3dsmax. Sometimes simpler is better. Love the new system as an option but not (yet) as a replacement. Hopefully it gets worked out but until them I am sticking with the old version.

    I think it's a wonderful idea. I am certain that there will be people for who the new camera system causes some issues, and it is overkill for simpler motion needs.

    I have already run into 2 problems that would be solved by maintaining the simpler method as an option.

    1. the new requirement to specify a speed vs overall time for a path

    2. constant motion is no longer actually constant for a simple 2 point path (hopefully this is just a bug an not a requirement of the new camera system)

    As the animation system becomes more capable there will likely be more surprises and complications with existing workflows. Maintaining the 2 point option seems like a simple solution. It would also provide newcomers with the most approachable animation option possible.


    I see now that this change is an effort to simplify the new camera system. It is logical from that standpoint, but it is always preferable to have more options and the ability to define either speed or time would be great.


    May not be a bug, but unless I am missing something this is an unwanted change to the UI.

    What is the last version to allow animation time to be input in seconds?

    M/S is a unit that I have no way of matching in another animation package, which I do quite a bit to add items enscape does not offer such as animated objects and textures.

    If you would like to improve this, it would be far more useful to be able to input segment time in more than on format... speed, seconds, or frames. The slider could be for one of them, and also allow us to type in any of the others.

    Thank you,


    Any progress on saving animations as an image sequence?

    This would prevent us from having to re-compress already compressed mp4s (prior to uploading on youtube/vimeo, who then re-re-compress the video)

    We would ideally also save Material ID and Depth images per frame, which would allow for many post production possibilities.

    Thank you,


    Bendbox Thanks but doesn't seem to work, just tried it.

    Pieter Good point about the material editor. I am also guessing that may be a sticking point with Enscape since they seem to want to leverage existing UI of the host package whenever possible. Possibly there is a text keyword flag solution. The keyword flags seem to be a very robust solution as all host packages use names for materials, layers, etc. Being able to flag them with keywords, seems like a logical way to extend capabilities without replacing existing UI functions.

    Gadget thanks very much for the tip, however I am already familiar with techniques for modeling to make edges appear more clearly. I also use other rendering packages which allow for these techniques and for me it is much faster to use a combination of the above than to change the model to make certain details more obvious. Also, these techniques are easily adjustable to make details read clearly at many viewing distances, relying on geometry is only ideal at certain distances.



    In the last preview version (haven't tested this in latest preview yet) I get a 0 kb file for both Material ID and Depth files when saving to exr. Exr output would be most useful for the depth pass.

    One thing I miss in Enscape and have to fall back to post production for is adding edge definition for hard / small edges ( door and window frames, raised panels, etc)

    Request #1: Overlaid line work per material (asked elsewhere but not for this use case)

    One NPR workaround is currently included which is overlaying faint line work, but requires post work to isolate the effect. If this were per material it would be a ok workaround in some cases without post work.

    Request #2: Additional Ambient Occlusion controls which darken corners and provide radius control.

    Another workaround would be more control over the AO, and / or a separate AO pass similar to the depth and material id pass may. Ideally the seperate pass could allow for a different type of AO settings than are shown in the beauty pass.

    Request #3: Rounded edges

    Would I be possible to allow for rounded edges per material with control over radius?

    Thank you,


    +1 Type Presets that detect... pull down could be in addition to but not in lieu of. Detected Text is way faster. They could maybe be overrideable as the current presets work.

    Would also still love to have these settings accessible via external plain text xml or inI file. You keep the render settings via this method, why not type preset type material settings? This is useful for managing large numbers of settings with normal file management instead of having to use pull downs and sliders / buttons which are slower and not as easy to keep consistent.

    Material Editor in sketchup is working very solid for me by the way. Zero glitches / crashes which is awesome.


    Micha Thanks for being so helpful with the suggestions. I understand your concern about having to remember settings in the ini file, but if we are going to ask for an "Expert Option" in the UI, we should be able to work with whatever tools we are provided ;-) I usually keep notes, screenshots, etc, about my successes so that I can reproduce them later, even with the current UI.

    I would disagree about using text files as being a problem for setting expert options. The current settings XML system is quite nice and could be expanded to allow for options not available via the sliders (higher quality MP4 compression, sharpness, etc) This text based approach allows for a very easy method of organizing multiple setting options/versions without having to open each and change them via sliders. I typically have a separate settings file for each scene of my project, and currently I can edit those same files via the UI, or via a text editor. This allows for us to backup the entire settings folder, try new stuff via UI, even search and replace within the XML files, and then revert any scene settings if needed. If we really screw something up, we could even pull an old settings file from a cloud backup such as carbonite. Try that with vray settings that you forgot to save to a file.

    On the subject of settings via text options... I personally love the material tag names as a baseline for materials settings. It is a very quick way of implementing preset materials. If we could have the ability to define custom material tags, it would be an ideal system in my opinion.