Posts by mattendler

    I was producing a perspectival image where the tree was the central figure of the image but it was blocking the view of the architecture. In reality, I wouldn't mind it being "blocked" but since we're working with illusions there's a moment where the textured 3d model of the plant, when in focus, actually becomes a distraction. We start staring at all the leaves and the colors, and the way the light hits it, and before we know it we've lost our attention in a simulated effect and need to force our mind on the real focus: the architecture.I want "volume control" on the planting without eliminating the planting or having to change the species type.

    The "favorited views" method is limited for managing different sets of batch rendered images. I'd like there to be a way to save batch sets per project, ie. Concrete Facade set, Entry set, Parking Circulation set, etc.)

    Want to be able to see planting and entourage as a simple transparent underlay to the view. Not that the geometry itself is transparent (hence seeing backfaces) but that it becomes a transparent layer in the view....


    Other viable option is that it gets exported as a separate layer for masking.

    Lets say I have 10 views of a building.


    I have a design option set with 8 options.


    I want to produce a collated PDF that shows the same vantage point cycling through each option (this has produced the greatest design prompt sessions with our client and principal).


    This means I have 80 images to pump out.


    Now consider I have another design option set with 2 options which influence the other 8.


    Thats 160 images now.


    Sounds a bit absurd I know but what would be the best way to batch render a matrix of options? I think it could lend itself to interesting capacity for decision-making.


    The thing is, you can only effectively use the dropdown to showcase all of the expressions of a single design option set. If you want to cycle through multiple sets you have to use a view template and assign Design Option overrides to the views planned to be exported, which feels beyond the limits of Enscape...but if I can manually effect the 2 option set and have Enscape cycle through the 8 options that is only two manual moves rather than 16. Does the API allow for switching the active option?


    If Enscape names the exported images with a suffix according to their design option, then that will probably be enough for me to batch compile them into a PDF booklet.

    This is by design. We're looking into ways to adjust this in the future, but as Pieter mentioned, it's placed there to allow scaling. :)

    Don't get me wrong, I take brute force methods against Revit's differentiated behavior of categories as well, just know that this is an issue.


    I agree that you're taking the right approach to making the software work for your assets


    I must insist that this is still a workaround, and will always be read that way, and that people will always be confused by it, because Revit relies on things being in the right categories. It WILL cause problems with graphics overrides, schedules, filters, view templates, etc. and require extra work on designers to filter around them.


    All this being said, I think you should advocate for the behavior you need in the appropriate category and take it up with Autodesk, since they are pretty much causing the problem.


    You guys are big enough now to have some weight in the conversation, in my opinion.


    Thanks for reading!

    Hey hpsingh , thank you very much for your feedback.


    The ability to measure distances in Enscape has been requested before quiet a few times, so you can be assured that we're aware of the demand for this implementation. I'll also upvote the corresponding topic on our agenda and add your feedback. :) There is no ETA currently when this will be implemented though so stay tuned.


    Further, could you detail a bit more what you mean with "display annotations which are in 3D view", how exactly do you imagine this functionality to work? I'm asking, because if you give me a short description I'll also file this as a feature request accordingly. Thanks!

    Demian,


    When you do implement this feature, please make it an option to remove when exporting. Sometimes we'll send this to a contractor and we do not want them to start measuring distances using an Enscape Viewer when they need to be looking at our construction documents and producing RFI's when they see missing information.

    I feel like the soft landing bounce thing that happens everytime I transition from fly to walk is rather annoying. Would prefer that be an option. I can see how it might seem appealing to a presentation, but it honestly just feels additive and unecessary, and creates a sensation of "lag" when I'm working on the design. When I drop I drop so I know what it feels like from standing position. Its a flying camera - I don't need it to simulate the bending of knees. These kind of animations are superfluous and distract from the design process.


    Thanks.

    Adding an upvote to this. I've explored thoroughly the ins and out of accomplishing this with the .RPC format from archvision, and found it to be a terribly frustrating conversion process of creating our own custom 3D+ RPC families to drop into our models.


    We recently went through a design visualization phase of modeling every specimen our landscape designer had specified so that we could express to the municipality involved what our vision was for a specific project. I performed the work and the process was tedious. Looking up for plants on turbosquid, cgtrader, etc., opening them in 3DS Max, following Archvision's conversion steps, only to find that each model had a different compatibility to the process, and needed to be treated differently.


    There were four very large issues with Archvision's RPC format, which I would hope Enscape's strategy would remove us from:


    1. All UV mapping must be contained in one bitmap file, and typically every downloaded textured model author's texture mapping would need to be modified in order to compensate for this. Sometimes it would take hours to re-map and re-render something. Ideally whatever Enscape does should eliminate the user's need to re-produce/re-render UV mappings.


    2. Most textured models available for purchase use different proprietary renderers, which therefore means their materials definitions are also proprietary. Some used scanline which is good. Some used vray. Some used corona. Etc. RPC only supported scanline and some vray materials. So it is on the user to convert those material definitions so that they can be properly re-rendered into a combined UV map for the RPC file. Turbosquid has their own manual on converting materials, but nothing is automatic, its all step-by-step, so you can imagine how much time merely converting materials from one renderer to another for a single plant model might take. Hopefully Enscape's method prevents users from having to convert material formats.


    3. Additionally, as stated above, only the diffuse (albedo) maps come in, so there is a lack in realism. Ideally we can take advantage of describing glossiness, shadows, etc.


    4. They use a web-based upload system to convert one model. It requires 4 different files - a hi-rez OBJ, a low-rez OBJ, a JPEG for thumbnail, and a combined UV texture mapped bitmap file created from items #1 and #2. I found this process to be slow and ideally would have preferred to simple export from one of our native softwares. Hopefully you can consider that those of us who are embarking on developing custom assets, or locating them in the marketplace, use industry-standard applications and want our pipelines to stay in them, not require additional widgets that require log-in


    5. Their custom dashboard is horrendous and the drag and drop functionality, while fine, is outweighed by the fact that it does not integrate with the content management systems otherwise available, like UNIFI, AVAIL, etc. Hopefully Enscape considers how we need to see all of our assets in one place, and does not contribute to the strain and stress of needing multiple buckets for things, but rather one indexable database of families, whether local or in the cloud.


    I strongly suggest a file format which embeds both geometry and texture information, like FBX or something similar.


    Thanks for reading

    We do a lot of planters and the 3D grass always produces an issue at the edge of the planter wall. I know I could pull the surface back but then it looks bad in architectural documentation. Its important that we have the control that the grass be able to stop at a hard edge, and not overflow. In some cases the overflow is fine but we need the choice