Posts by renderwiz

REMINDER! If you encounter any issues with Enscape (e.g. crashes, installation problems) or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team directly through the Help Center or by using the Support button as detailed HERE! Thank you for your understanding.


    Totally get that you guys have obviously gone over this at length. I am hoping to make sure that a possible path of least resistance toward better material adjustments is not overlooked as unacceptable to users.

    I believe toward that goal it would be helpful to break down what material adjustments we consider essential and what minimum interface that would be acceptable.

    Essential would be basic adjustments to reflection, specularity, transparency, ior. These are essential because right now there are certain scenes which are simply not usable without them. They are also essential because +90% of materials make use and benefit from these settings.

    Next would be additional maps such as Bump, Normal, Specular, etc. These are lower in my opinion because a much smaller percent of users even take advantage of thes. Also for most materials in a typical archviz scene they are not required to make a good image.

    As it relates to interface, the naming convention does pose issues with naming conflicts. Another possible solution with even more potential would be an external xml file. The xml approach could rely on creating each material entry with the name of one material in our scene. Within that entry we add all the parameters needed. You guys would provide us with the template we need to follow for the xml.

    Assuming you can make this type of system adjust in realtime (enscape refreshes the settings upon save of the xml file) this could actually be far more productive than requiring setting be input within the sketchup interface. For example we could simply copy and paste entire material setups, quickly swap out material / filenames, swap out material versions just by replacing renaming the xml file, etc, etc.

    To make it approachable for newbies, you could implement all your prebuilt material such as copper, plastic, etc within the xml file, and users could use this as a jumping off point in beginning their adjustments.

    Also, if going a route like this would indeed be faster for development, it does not need to be looked at as the only solution... if you implemented something like this prior to, or even alongside an integrated material editor I believe many users would find it useful.

    For an example of how two approaches would be useful..... you mention preferring to have textures embedded in a file. I am of the opposite mindset. This leads to bloat when saving incrementally and needing to update multiple files if a texture changes. It would be ideal to be able to choose either method.


    While I love the idea of a super easy, quick and intuitive material system, there is a finite time to code such a thing. I would be more than happy with the ability to hack together something based on the tools that sketchup does allow.

    Since enscape is pulling material and texture data directly from the sketchup scene, we could embed multiple sub-materials containing the maps we are looking to use, such as brick, brick-bump, brick-normal, brick-displacement, brick-reflection, brick-glossiness, each as a separate material. If Enscape finds one of the sub-materials provided, it would use these to add these additional parameters to the master material it builds. Would probably be best to choose a very unique identifier for the naming structure.

    A sub-material's name can also indicate the strength of whatever map or parameter we are supplying. For example, the name"brick-bump-25"would mean 25% strength bump. If we want to supply only a value, we create a material with a name such as "brick-reflection-25", or "brick-glossiness-33"

    The other cool thing about breaking it down like this is it could theoretically give Sketchup/Enscape the ability to do separate scaling for each texture . Not sure if Enscape can handled this info, but this method would provide it. For example, "brick-glossiness-33" material could have a texture with a size of 10' x 10', whereas the main "brick" material texture might be sized at 5'x5'. There are many times when the ability to add a different sized submap can help to disguise tiling.

    Thank you very much for the heads up on the ground texture files. That is helping already.

    I do have a couple more items to suggest if an 'expert mode' is developed.

    -Ambient Occlusion Radius

    -Ambient Occlusion Strength


    Exactly :) The settings below are where I feel the interface is limiting. Being about to type in a number (or path to file in the last item) would be much more flexible.

    General > Quality

    Capture > Duration

    Capture > Compression Quality

    Capture > Panorama Resolution

    Capture > FPS

    Capture > Noise

    Image > Sharpness (Bring back please, some of us are post processing images and video and would like flexibility with sharpening)

    Image > Color Temperature

    Atmosphere > Sun

    Atmosphere > Texture (let us specify a path to an image... this seems to affect the color of 'bounced' light and it would be great to be able to tweak this)

    Thank you,


    I would like more control than the sliders can provide. One way to do this without making the default install intimidating for new users is an "Expert Mode", or even an expert build. Ideally this would allow direct control over the variables being set and the possibility to go even higher. I would be fine with this being provided similar to the preview versions (ie. use at your own risk) The benefit to Enscape is that we are very motivated to see how far we can push the renderer under a variety of conditions. If you let us do that experimentation for you, everyone wins.

    If I may offer another perspective... many users want to see higher quality and would be happy to wait longer for rendered frames (I certainly would) I do not think the answer is to stop pushing the limits but rather to give more control to the users to customize the output to their needs. I think it would be wonderful if the plugin could run in different "modes" similar to how vray has simple/advanced/expert, etc. This way the default install would remain simple and "newbie proof" while the more advanced users could either choose to push the quality even higher, or throttle it even lower, than what a simple interface can provide for.

    I would like to be able to save animations as image sequences, such as png, tga, tif, exr. When doing video editing it is not good to edit from mp4s due to recompression. We are also able to do much better post processing with clean frames as opposed to compressed mp4s.