Posts by renderwiz

    As I mentioned, it is inconsistent, but I am certain it is happening. I would not have chosen the wrong folder several times yesterday :-) Unfortunately, I have rolled back to a previous version.

    In sketchup, it is possible that this is being affected by the dialogue for linking proxies or opening textures. If I remember correctly one of the "incorrect" folders that images were going to was a proxy folder I was using. You should try one of those actions between your save operations.

    I have... and it is currently still and issue.

    I have rolled back to which is the last usable version for me for other reasons (clarity in details mostly, and I also prefer the lighting quality). I will have to reinstall the latest if you need a test image from me.

    If you would like to reproduce the exact scenario, it is quite simple. Create a camera at a height of +- 100' looking in the distance. Copy a line of trees from near the camera to 2000' feet away or so. You should see a *very clear* distance where the shadow go from crisp to very blurry. The angle of the sun also affects how far the change happens from the camera.

    Currently when I reinstall a version of enscape, to the same folder, my previous custom horizons are deleted.

    If this is expected, I would like enscape to also look for horizons in a folder outside the installation folder.

    Possibly the user directory, or ideally and directory we choose per setting file.

    This is also normal and there to reduce performance costs. :) If you want to increase the distance of shadows further, let me know and I'll file it as a feature request.

    Yes please. We at least need an override for situations like aerial views. After a couple hundred meters, the shadow of trees change from sharp to very blurry instantly. I have submitted this to support about a year ago and it was called a bug. It is too distracting to be usable. Even if we could override to only show the very blurry version of shadows, this would not be great but possibly acceptable. Currently it looks like a glitch, that is impossible to overlook, and if one decides to use that image he must put a disclaimer on it (which is unprofessional of both Enscape and the archiz person creating the image)

    Thanks for sharing. Yes that is the type of thing I am talking about.... possibly even more abstracted. Are you guys using a locked camera so you can flip between images created by different versions of Enscape?

    The more idiosyncrasies that can be stuffed into on view the better.

    I have not had time to put something together, but when I do I would like to share the scene so that others can test with it. This way we can not only determine difference between Enscape versions but also possibly between Nvidia drivers, system types, etc. It can be very helpful as well when a new user sees something odd that is a known issue to be able to load up a test scene like this and see that his results are actually normal, not something wrong with his system.

    Micha thanks for the workaround. Really appreciate all the insights you share.

    I have noticed there can also be a difference in how colors look that are set in sketchup vs a solid texture of the same rgb color. Perhaps there is a workaround there as well.

    Generally post production is needed with any render, so that is always an option to handle these types of unnatural looking effects. If you know to expect it, you can automate the post pro to a large extent.

    16bit png output would be a useful output format.

    When rendering with other packages, I typically output 16bit png images and "burn in" whatever color correction was done within the frame buffer of the rendering package. This provides a good base image with plenty of room for potential adjustment in post.

    By contrast, I find the current exr output at 32bit not very useful. I cannot seem to get the color correction in post to look anywhere near the output from Enscape as 8bit file (png/jpg). As such, I am really left with only 8bit (useable) output currently.

    ps. If anyone has any tips for getting the 32 bit output to match the jpg or png output in photoshop, please advise.

    Required Info:

    1. What Version of Enscape?

    Optional info in order of priority:

    2. Rendering "Quality" Setting Used (Ultra, High, etc)

    3. Host Modeling Package (sketchup ,etc)

    4. Graphics Driver Version

    5. Operating System

    When doing tests and sharing results it is very useful to have the version number associated with the image. It would also be great to know the system type and video driver version being used.

    Can any of this info be added automatically as a stamp to the output?

    Demian Gutberlet I appreciate your input, however I am thinking of something much more abstract and analytical. Similar to what is done for comparing digital cameras or demonstrating the effect of different HDR's. It would include a variety of types of detail geometry at different scales, light source types (some with indirect lighting) and probably would need to be both an interior and exterior version.

    The viewpoint should be fixed between tests so that one would be able to run through the images as a slideshow and compare differences.

    Thanks for the reply.

    You always seem so eager, I figured it wouldn't hurt to nominate you ;-)

    If I get some time, I will put something together.

    Has anyone created a test scene?

    I know of several areas of improvement that many users would like to see addressed for which a test scene(s) could be created to evaluate. This way we could effectively compare the difference between versions.

    Also, since enscape is realtime there are obviously tradeoffs being made and sometime this means a step back in quality for certain types of details. A test scene that is widely used and posted would provide valuable consistent feedback about each version.

    If these do not yet exist, I nominate Micha  ^^

    It would be useful to allow the creation of multiple keyframes at once from a selection of cameras or all cameras in the scene. They could be created in alphabetical order (scene3, scene4, etc) with a specified set interval such as 5sec, etc.

    This would allow the ability to effectively block out animation paths via the native cameras of the host package. One could then fine tune in the path editor.

    It would also allow for a practical work around for (roughly) importing a camera path from other programs, or to (roughly) convert a path created via another animation method in the host package to enscape's path format.


    Thank you.

    I was referring to the web standalone feature... when I first tested that I thought I read that it was a beta service and the language seemed to imply there would be a cost in the future. If you are saying that service is intended to remain included, for no additional fee, that is great news.

    Regarding the assets... I suspected they would remain free, just wanted to be sure.

    I was really just asking the moderators... as far as I know you did nothing wrong and it certainly did not offend me :-)

    This is one of those things that gets addressed as it comes up... I think your post may have been the first I have seen with a direct offer and thought it would be a good place to ask.

    Best of luck to you in offering your services.