Posts by alexandrecollaco

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

You probably did, but just to make sure, you did experiment with all the settings like Exposure, Contrast settings, etc. to see if that would help you already with achieving an image that is more to your desire? In this case, in fact, it looks like the image just could use a bit more Exposure and Colour Saturation actually? Both can of course be adjusted via the Enscape Visual Settings already.

Sometimes the Enscape sliders are not enough and also there are some difference between realtime images and rendered ones. So, it is easier and more precise to make adjustments in post.

I'm working on a video (as a study) where I used more of the Enscape controls. Not sure if it will come out good but i learned a lot about some minor workarounds in Enscape.

Also I realized that the file sizes can grow really fast, specially when rendering it as lossless. Not sure if working on 16 bit is pactical for me anymore.

Quote

Finally,

I am not entirely sure what you're referring to here exactly. I can gladly forward it as a feature request if you could go into a bit more detail? Thank you!

Most renders nowadays have a real world workflow.

Cameras for example mimic real cameras, they have exposure, Iso, f-stop, aperture size, lens in mm,....

Lights have candelas and lumens as units (which we can get the values from manufacturers) . Enscape Rhino unfortunately doesn't have good lights.

Wow, Amazing

Hi,

I'm adventuring myself in the video creation and it is amazing how fast I can produce and render videos in Enscape.

One struggle I'm having though is that Enscape only allows 8 bit images/videos as output and I rely a lot on high range images at post production stage. The higher range workflow opens up a whole world of new possibilities and adjusts to lights, shadows and color.

8 bit tends to break really fast in the post production stages, so, I would like to suggest to add the option to export raw or 16 bit videos/images.

Bellow a comparison of Enscape output as .exr and post edited image.

Another suggestion would be to have a real world workflow to camera settings and light. this way we can easily mimic real world cameras, depth of field and motion blur.

Best regards,

Alexandre

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

alexandrecollaco , I was not able to reproduce this behavior in our latest release, so please also make sure you're using that version.

Furthermore, which CAD solution are you using with Enscape this time, I reckon Rhino 7 judging by your post history? Also, can you reproduce this issue when using a 2k map as well?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Thanks for the support and sorry, I forgot to put the specs.

Rhino 7

Nvidia - 2080ti

Enscape 3.01

It happens with 4k,3k,2k textures.

It is applied in a simple plane, with a planar mapping off 100 x 100 cm, displacement amount of 0.12.

I'm attaching a texture where it happens, but it happens with lots of textures of fabric.

I'm trying to do a rug material and noticed that there is some limit in which I can scale the map using the "Explicit texture transformation" in the map slot.

As you can see in the example bellow, if I change the map repetition from 0.6 to 0.5, the map is completely degraded. It is a 4k height map from Poliigon.

Why does it happen, it is some sort of mipmap runing under the hood?

If I crop the height map image I can get a smaller tiling working properly

Thanks

Hi, I'm doing some experiments with materials and I have one suggestion for the way Enscape uses normal and displace.

As it is right now, v3.02, I only have the possibility to use normal or height but not both as usual in a render engine.

The problem with this is that heightmaps doesn't have fine details and normal lacks proper volume. It would be desirable to have both, normal for details and height for volume working together. The ideal would be to even have an extra bump map to add even finer details but this would be a plus.

Below you can see a test that explains what I mean (albedo and roughness is the same in all images):

The bottom images are simple height and normal, the top ones is a workaround with some composition in photoshop. the workaround works almost good but it is also time consuming.

Best regards

Quote from Tupaia

Good question, I'm interested in this, too.

So, the next big thing would be support for Rhino 7, physically based materials, and (without wanting to move off topic) substances.

Thanks!

Rhino is already integrating with substance, here is a link (https://www.rhino3d.com/docs/g…be-substance-integration/)

+1 for me here

Quote from alexandrecollaco

Here are my thoughts comparing both Enscape and Twinmotion 21 (I'm using it in Rhino 7):

Render Quality:

1. Reflections.
   • Enscape is better, Twinmotion is terrible here, they use some trick that doesn't work at all, but it is in their roadmap to implement better reflection.
   • Mirrors in Enscape aren't very good for certain angles though and, if you have two mirrors facing each other, the reflection of them will be gray. Glass objects are bad for both.
2. Overall lighting,
   • Enscape is also better, although in Rhino, for artificial lights, it doesn't support IES. Also, area lights have some weird behavior and the inverse square attenuation doesn't work properly.

Workflow:

1. Integration
   • Enscape has the best integration. I really enjoy being able to do everything inside rhino, no need to export or manage link and materials in an outside application. Twinmotion uses a direct link but it is not a very seamless experience, specially if you do lots of modifications in the model.
2. Interface
   • Twinmotion has a nice interface but it is very annoying to navigate thru. For example, to setup a material there is no way to setup everything in one place, you need to go back and forth in multiple levels of interface. It is time consuming and confusing.

Assets and material:

1. Assets
   
   • Enscape has a nice library and the custom asset library is very good (although there is a lot to improve - My suggestions here). Twinmotion is integrating with Quixel and they have a growing, good quality, library of scanned assets. Twinmotion also allows you to add your own asset to a custom library (I didn't test it a lot though). Lumion is by far the best one here.
2. Materials
   • Twinmotion comes with an ok material library and is integrated with Quixel Megascans which is huge (I use their materials a lot). Enscape has no library. Twinmotion doesn't support parallax. Lumion has the best library and some amazing features like adding dirt, round edges, growing ivy.... (It would be nice to see some of those in Enscape).

Special features:

1. Sky simulator - Encape creates a sky with clouds, not great but for some projects it is perfect. Doesn't work for night shots. Don't know how Twinmotion handle this.
2. Weather - Just like Lumion, Twinmotion simulates the passage of seasons affecting trees, rain, snow. It is not essential for me but it is a nice feature.
3. Growing Trees - Twinmotion vegetation library allows you to set the age of the trees and it will affect shape and size.
4. Scatering assets - Twinmotion has a great scattering tool that allows you to paint assets in the terrain surfaces (couldn't figure out how to do it with my custom library though) but it is a great feature.
5. Animation, paths etc. - Twinmotion allows you to animate things, cars, people,... This is great.

I am not able to talk about the VR, Collaboration, BIM tools and others because I do not use them.

Overall I prefer Enscape because it is simpler/easier to use and has better final quality.

But I believe Twinmotion has a huge potential, they use the Unreal platform that is powerful. They have some features that I don't know how Enscape team would implement.

Display More

Forgot to say, the solution that seems to have the best quality is the D5Render. Haven't tested it a lot though. They seem to be able to reproduce better vegetation, specially far away, better lighting and glass. Also their soft shadows and detail lighting seems better. Unfortunately they don't have a luve sync with R

Rhino.

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

alexandrecollaco , nothing I can say about this yet when it comes to Enscape, but I've gladly forwarded it for you to our product management team. There are quite a few things planned when it comes to new Enscape features to improve graphical fidelity, I'll still make sure our developers see this as well.

Thanks,

I'm not sure all that it can do but it seem very interesting, specially to bring our libraries easily between aplications

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

alexandrecollaco , I will definitely forward that to our developers as well.

Great, thank you.

I would also suggest for them to take a look at the Nvidia Omniverse MDL material and Pixar USD format. It seems very promissing to be able to exchange models and materials between softwares.

Hi,

I learned yesterday about the Pixar USD (USD) and the MDL Nvidia Materials (MDL) and they seem very powerful to exchange assets and scenes between platforms.
With MDL for example I can use my libraries from other engines and with the USD it seems even more powerful to manage and connect different applications.

I would like to ask if Enscape is aware and planing to implement such technologies in the future.

Thanks,

Alexandre

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

I have forwarded your feedback as well - the problem here is that our hands may be tied because Rhino does not feed the information we require into Enscape itself. Still, I'll discuss this once more with PM.

Hi Demian, it seems Iray is also using IES in Rhino but their approach is using it as an MDL (nvidia) material.

Take a look.

Thanks

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

Thanks a lot for all the feedback alexandrecollaco , I will gladly file those as feature requests if they do not exist already - in that case I would simply forward your upvote, alongside the feedback of course.

Can you briefly send me a screenshot of that? It's a known behavior as far as I know but just to make sure it looks the same for you.

With which software solution/tool did you export your .fbx files in the first place?

Examples of differences between render and Asset editor. I could not simulate the tint making no effect in darker colors, maybe it was a problem in a specific file. Just that the asset editor seems washed out, probably because of lighting.

I exported the FBX with Rhino 7

Quote from alexandrecollaco

Edit asset materials without the need to open the custom asset editor. I know it's kind of a different proposal from what you have now but it would also simplify our work.

Maybe have a the ability to cycle thru some material already previously configured.

For example:

A Sofa with a couple of fabric and wood materials configured which you can , somehow cycle thru them, test options with clients,...

That would be great

I'm wondering if there is a way to create an animated flame with animated transparency

I could not figure out how to do it.

Is there a way to do it or is it a requested feature?

Thank you

Quote from zoomer

Got it.

Yes that is nice for cheap bump maps to fake some more depth and shadows.

BTW

So far avoided Displacement wherever I could because of render times.

Same for Normal Maps.

I tried them a few times and also thought they are increasing render time

but I did not see any advantages.

But maybe I am wrong with that. Any other experiences and opinions

Display More

They can add a lot more depth than normalmap, but it is good to have a proper heightmap to use. If are using a bump map and turning on displacement it makes no sense.

It would be goo to mix the displacement to add height + normal small surface details. But Enscape is not there yet.

Quote from zoomer

What do you mean by parallax ?

Architectonical Camera ?

(2 point perspective to avoid distortion of vertical lines is there)

I mean Parallax shading, it is a fake displacement using heightmaps. It will give you the illusion of depth with shadows and occlusion. See the example bellow between normal and parallax.

Unreal is beautiful and has some amazing features but it is definitely not for my work. You need to build shaders from scratch or rely on third party ones. Last time I tried their RTX integration for refraction was lousy and documentation is also all over the place, sometime it takes hours of work digging in forums to figure out how to solve a simple problem.

I agree that, with time, TM has a lot of potential if they integrate the unreal quality and improve their workflow.

Quote from Ondrej

Hi man , thx a lot for a long answer

have you seen a flip from Twinmotion to unreal engine ? it can be the choice ... I think ( what I see ) can be a real rival for vray and Arnold in 3dsmax.

If you have time give a look on it .... and pls write me your opinion.

thx a lot

have nice week

Ondrej

Display More

Here are my thoughts comparing both Enscape and Twinmotion 21 (I'm using it in Rhino 7):

Render Quality:

1. Reflections.
   • Enscape is better, Twinmotion is terrible here, they use some trick that doesn't work at all, but it is in their roadmap to implement better reflection.
   • Mirrors in Enscape aren't very good for certain angles though and, if you have two mirrors facing each other, the reflection of them will be gray. Glass objects are bad for both.
2. Overall lighting,
   • Enscape is also better, although in Rhino, for artificial lights, it doesn't support IES. Also, area lights have some weird behavior and the inverse square attenuation doesn't work properly.

Workflow:

1. Integration
   • Enscape has the best integration. I really enjoy being able to do everything inside rhino, no need to export or manage link and materials in an outside application. Twinmotion uses a direct link but it is not a very seamless experience, specially if you do lots of modifications in the model.
2. Interface
   • Twinmotion has a nice interface but it is very annoying to navigate thru. For example, to setup a material there is no way to setup everything in one place, you need to go back and forth in multiple levels of interface. It is time consuming and confusing.

Assets and material:

1. Assets
   
   • Enscape has a nice library and the custom asset library is very good (although there is a lot to improve - My suggestions here). Twinmotion is integrating with Quixel and they have a growing, good quality, library of scanned assets. Twinmotion also allows you to add your own asset to a custom library (I didn't test it a lot though). Lumion is by far the best one here.
2. Materials
   • Twinmotion comes with an ok material library and is integrated with Quixel Megascans which is huge (I use their materials a lot). Enscape has no library. Twinmotion doesn't support parallax. Lumion has the best library and some amazing features like adding dirt, round edges, growing ivy.... (It would be nice to see some of those in Enscape).

Special features:

1. Sky simulator - Encape creates a sky with clouds, not great but for some projects it is perfect. Doesn't work for night shots. Don't know how Twinmotion handle this.
2. Weather - Just like Lumion, Twinmotion simulates the passage of seasons affecting trees, rain, snow. It is not essential for me but it is a nice feature.
3. Growing Trees - Twinmotion vegetation library allows you to set the age of the trees and it will affect shape and size.
4. Scatering assets - Twinmotion has a great scattering tool that allows you to paint assets in the terrain surfaces (couldn't figure out how to do it with my custom library though) but it is a great feature.
5. Animation, paths etc. - Twinmotion allows you to animate things, cars, people,... This is great.

I am not able to talk about the VR, Collaboration, BIM tools and others because I do not use them.

Overall I prefer Enscape because it is simpler/easier to use and has better final quality.

But I believe Twinmotion has a huge potential, they use the Unreal platform that is powerful. They have some features that I don't know how Enscape team would implement.

Hi everyone,

Finally I got some time to use the custom asset. It is a great tool that makes the process simpler but also way too time consuming to set up each asset.

Here are my thoughts and suggestions (I'm using Rhino 7, Enscape 3.01):

1. Having folders to organize by type, it is crucial once the library starts to grow. Tags also would be great.
2. Make it easy to export/import assets, right now it is time consuming. I have to setup every material, one by one:
   1. Have an exporter in Rhino, so, I just press a button and it exports the asset, material, proxy and generate the asset in the library automatically. Also when importing, being able to select everything, asset file, proxy file, materials,... and not one by one.
3. Copy Asset, so it is easier to make variations of the same asset.
4. Batch import/export material, sometimes setting up some assets with lots of materials (ex. some species of vegetation) I have to export each material one by one and then reapply one by one in the other similar asset. It takes a lot of time, so, export/import all materials would be great.
5. Edit asset materials without the need to open the custom asset editor. I know it's kind of a different proposal from what you have now but it would also simplify our work.

Some possible bugs and problems:

1. The tint color in the asset editor preview window does not show darker colors. Everything also looks a bit washed out, maybe it is the lighting in the scene.
2. When you import a new assets there is no prompt to choose units, it will get the size of the object and interpret as if it is in meters, so if you export a 100 x 100 x 100 cm box as an .fbx, it will be a 100 x 100 x 100 meter box in the asset editor.

That is it,

And congratulations for the great work .

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

I have forwarded your feedback as well - the problem here is that our hands may be tied because Rhino does not feed the information we require into Enscape itself. Still, I'll discuss this once more with PM.

Thank you,

I know Vray for Rhino do support IES, don't know if their type of solution is feasible for Enscape though.