We can't upload .rvt files?
Perhaps it's just me - but there's an area missing from here - specifically, a "general discussion" area.
I "worry" that a lot of good, universally-applicable stuff goes into the application-specific sub-forums, where some might not venture if not a user of such.
For example, I wanted to come here and ask about "who is using an ultra-wide monitor with Enscape?" but where would I put that? Seems a perfect candidate for a dedicated Hardware & tech. area (which would save split-conversations about gpu recommendations repeating in the different application sub-forums, no?
Anyway... just my 2pence for the day.
As per the title really - in Revit Assets come through with type-based parameters:
which we, as authors, can introduce to our own content to make any family redirect to an Evermotion asset when in Enscape = which is great!
However, sometimes, having this "locked" at a type level isn't ideal (use case example: appearance and size swap-outs of more-commonly instance-based items like trees)
Switching/employing the parameters in a family on an instance-basis doesn't appear to be recognised by Enscape - and I was wondering if this could supported please?
Thanks chaps - will investigate,
But whilst on the subject, quick quiz... can we hope in the future we will be able to custom-override past the 4096x2048 limit on panoramas?
I'm not keen on asking Enscape to keep adding (what I deem to be secondary) features - so please understand this is not a "can I haz" request...
Where/when we don't want to send out an .exe, (for the all the reasons recognised) or get locked into the chore of creating numerous static outputs - we'd like to explore panoramas more.
I've been playing with a trial of Pano2VR to stitch scenes together and create an informative, narrative-based, and conveniently web-friendly experience - but was wondering, (since this isn't really my area of interest or expertise) if anyone here knew of any alternatives they might suggest.
*it's not like a Pano2VRPro license is expensive, it's more if there's a feature set available elsewhere that's better.
...the RTX 2060 is both cheaper, better [/snip]
Even a GTX 1660ti will be on par with the GTX 1070 for half the price.
I was unaware of such budget-conscious RTX offerings - and more than happy to be corrected !
Project is NDA (hence the v.tight crop) but I could maybe getaway with a vignette-rip of the model (somehow?) - but ultimately, I can (be fairly) sure all was equivalent between the presets - will check "tomorrow" (read: later) and respond appropriately!!!
If budget is tight then drop specc'ing Quadro's immediately. And then again, even if it's not.
A 5GB P2000 retails at £400 - you can pick up a 8GB GTX1070 for that money.
Same model, same material, same vg settings, same Revit build, same user, same OS, same Enscape settings, but different Enscape (2.4.2 on left, 2.5.2 on right)
Is this a bug?
Am I understanding that you would want to save some of the 'global' settings as 'project' settings?
Or have a tag in some global settings that is variable depending on the project? (Look for a specification file in the same location as the project file and use the information within it for various settings. If it doesn't exist, use the default.)
It would be nice to have the loading screen populate with the project/client name without having to change it every project. And the default save file location. And any screen overlays... perhaps just the items listed in the "Customization" area of general settings?
On the money!
(presuming an understanding of Revit)
think how addins like Xrev can reach at a (Revit) model's shared parameters to pull - and concatenate - values into file outputs. It would be wonderful if Enscape could do this in the backend, (at a file level) - or, if in the absence of Revit, a manifest file of a kind for the other host modellers to look at stored within a project.
combined with Demian's query/clarification above...
(and presuming an understanding of Autocad)
Something like the world of working with .cui - where "global" rules can be set (practice-wide), with variations and exceptions allowed for, at an increasing level of granularity along the lines of:
At an interface level, simple thinking would be to offer ("Apply to this preset only" & "Apply to All presets") to certain settings... and (wearing my control-freak hat) potentially be locked out by higher-levelled control...
Take the <Capture> tab for example - in our office that's set one way, and one way only, across all our presets. Small gains on time saving mouse-clicks, but big wins from assured consistency.
you would also like to be able to change, for example, the "Rendering Quality" in every preset accordingly? As in, that would mean if you change the quality to Draft, every preset would have the Rendering Quality set to Draft as well,
I wasn't thinking at that level (I hadn't even considered that tier) but yes?
We follow a specific naming standard for our files - and when we export our standalones files they are named accordingly - however, the window displays the source-file name, which is far from ideal.
I know we can change the "Window Caption Text" - but that's a per-preset dialog change (and we employ a large number of presets) so not really ideal.
I can't imagine I'm the first to request this - but might it possible to introduce a "global" level of control, to which ALL presets, on ALL installs, reference, and "pull" settings, so I might assign a global screen-load & watermark, and setting-switch(es, like) "use filename for Window Caption Text"
Thinking, further-down this line of thinking - enabling Enscape to "pull" other settings, like certain (Revit) properties to drive titles, etc (like those found under Project Information) would be a fantastic addition.
First off, thanks for all the great content!
I'm curious - as I will be reworking the .rfa (switching them to workplane based, shared, category swap, renamed, etc) I was wondering - might we be able to repoint the asset library browser at an alternative (on-server) location of (modified) .rfa?
I've been doing some investigation into the Quest this weekend - and from what I've been reading - Demian is right on the money (re: optimisation) - and we should all avoid getting too excited about untethered too soon - as there remains a clear bias toward flatter, stylistic, visuals (read: low-to-no textures) - which whilst not necessarily an issue in (our) early stage, city-size, masterplanning form-finding "experiences" - the (still-quite lowly) Snapdragon 835 will quickly fall short come the time to fire up models featuring any significant use of detailed textures and RPC veg. content.
I mean, lets be pragmatic, some folk are still finding they need to throw last-gen Titans & RTX rigs to power their runarounds - so expecting an all-in-one priced @£400 to come up par, is a daydream.
I'm here asking the same as the OP, and whilst your replies add some clarity Demian, I fear it's not what jsanders and I are looking for.
Think how when you attempt to open an .xls currently opened by someone else a pop-up reports, immediately, "person x has this file open"... it is exceptionally useful, (but not great for multiple-but-limited-number-of-shared-seats scenarios)
Next, think about how you (a user) can query in some software, like V-Ray's Swarm, to see which licenses (nodes) are in active use = really really helpful.
Essentially, our users don't have (and won't get) access to our client portal account - so can't query the license server functions mentioned.
An in-app button to "call" the license pool and locate the current user(s) of the license(s) would be wonderful* - because even with an in-office IMS, sending round "who has Enscape open? can I get it please" quickly gets boring (to those who don't Enscape)
*returning the username would be best, PC next, IP worst
In general, if it's in your field of view then it exists and can be reflected.
(Any geometry outwith your FOV doesn't actually exist - it only comes into being if you look at it.)
Makes sense - but if that's the case, why do we get some slabs, columns and walls?
What is that stops Enscape reflecting?
In the first attached image (Enscape Reflections) we see the objects on the right reflected in the glass of the objects on the left
In the second attached image (Capture) - from an albeit larger model - but made with identical components and materials, we do not get everything?
As we are increasingly producing videos (much to my dismay) we'd really like to see this feature implemented, and would ask, is there any ETA on this?
Might we please get the option to save viewpoints to an external file (i.e. .xml, like the video paths) instead of / in addition to Revit?
Anyone who uses Masses w/ mass floors will know that it's easy to show (or not show) mass floors, in (Revit) views - using VG/VT on/off - enabling the production of 3D views, parallel and/or perspective either showing the mass only, or the mass with the storey-strata. Simples.
The thing is, when we send the same to Enscape, Enscape (quite rightly) struggles to show edge of mass floor - through the material appearance of the mass form - only occasionally, almost erratically, letting them show-through when very close - meaning we don't get to see the "stack" of floor plates.
Yes, we can use a slightly transparent/translucent material for the mass form - but that's (sometimes/often) not ideal either.
So I was curious if anyone else had found a method (for Enscape) that works...?