Quad mapping can have issues if you don't have enough resolution in your quad mesh. What does the geometry look like under the texture? It should look like this -
Reminder: If you encounter any issues with Enscape or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team through the Help Center or by using the Feedback button as detailed here.
I can understand not wanting to build a temporary solution or some material editor functionality if they are just going to scrap it and release a final version. What's the point? What they've done with proxies and with lights is more than I expected so I imagine the team will do the same with the material editor.
If there was say a basic framework constructed which will be the (complete) future material editor and there was a partial release with just normal map support first and then other mapping types down the road.....I wouldn't mind that. Hopefully we will see something soon.
This actually feels overly complex on the user side.
From what I gathered from Simon's post, the biggest issue was the texture maps somehow being present in the scene and the naming convention issues. If the user creating the texture swatches is too complicated, then it could be easily automated. Perhaps sampling a material and having the texture input component (swatches) created automatically with the name of the material or whatever other variables Enscape would need to read the maps.
What if you control it with group (or component) names instead of material names? The user would draw out faces to support the maps and keep them in scene, off camera somewhere. This would prevent them from being purged. You could have a main outer group with the material name and some suffix to signal that it contains the render maps. You could then have 2 or 3 subgroups which contain a single face supporting the applicable texture maps.
It would be easy enough to build a quick template to plug the maps into. The user could organize the "map groups" off camera as they wish. Taking further, they could then be saved as components and quickly loaded for future projects.
You might want to post this as a comment in the newest release thread of the Revit sub forum.
I'm trying to learn Substance designer for those cases where you need a specific texture and nothing meets your needs.
I am also. It depends on the job, the turn around time and the budget.....which dictates a lot of the end product. High budget projects aren't typically done in Enscape unless it's previz. At least for me. Manufactured stone products are big here in the US. It's tough as they vary greatly by region. If it's a local product, I can go out with my dslr and take the photos I need to make a good high res texture, but if it's a remote job on the other side of the country, I end up relying on my clients...and they have not concept of texture making.
besides what you are requesting the texture is low resolution and it's not seamless.
I am aware. It's a specific cultured veneer product which needs to be shown. Unfortunately the manufacturer doesn't provide seamless textures so I had to hack the texture together from 3 or 4 small section photos sent by the client. It is seamless and tiles well from a distance at 2K res. You are just seeing some clone stamp errors from my running out of patience.
Closest I have is 18.104.22.168. I'm not sure though if that was an official release or a preview though.
Substance support would be phenomenal. The subscription is reasonable for designer, painter and b2m. However, it's taken me quite a while to learn, especially designer which I'm still chipping away at. I'm not sure your average user would want to make that leap from the "hands off" material control currently in Enscape to something that is quite complicated. A simplified PBR approach would be great though.
The best solution, IMO, is something that falls in line with the ease of use already in Enscape, but yet gives a little more control for the high end users.
I wouldn't be opposed to a built in B2M type tech which would convert diffuse maps behind the scenes, automatically generating render maps and just allowing users to control the intensity on the surface. 99% of the normal maps I create for realtime software are created in one click (I use ShaderMap) with only the intensity adjusted. Vray has VRBumpMtl which automatically converts diffuse to bump and the Corona daily build also has an automatic bump generator. Both are very useful for pre-viz.
I'm just frustrated with the presentation of stone materials. For instance the scene below. The stone texture doesn't look awful in daylight, but when you throw the lighting in the mix, it looks terrible.
Yes Sketchup. I say normal maps for now, because at least we can control the reflectivity somewhat with naming conventions, whereas we have zero bump / height displayed in Sketchup at all. Obviously specular / reflection map support to mask the gloss would be a plus, but not having it doesn't detract from selling materials in a job...just detracts from selling realism. Having super flat stone or brick materials does detract from selling their role in a project.
I understand that you are relying on the host software to have a material system in place. Hopefully there is a workaround for Sketchup as it will never have a material system that deals with more than just the diffuse.
I'm wishing for a simple tool in the toolbar, perhaps just a letter "N" that will call an eye dropper. That eye dropper will let you sample a material and open a browser to link a normal map to that material. An additional slider to control the normal intensity would be a plus. Even if this is an intermediary solution until the material tools are further refined.....I find it necessary to accurately show things like stone in Enscape.
I've spent 10 years making my texture library with maps for specular, bump, normal, etc. for rendering. I would love to be able to utilize the full potential of my texture library in Enscape as I do in every other software.
Is there any word on support for proxies in Enscape for SketchUp? I would love to be able to use some higher quality models for trees around my exterior scenes. I'd also love to be able to use my Laubwerk proxy collection inside Enscape.
Ted, a workaround that I've been using is to use Skatter's custom object to create psuedo-proxies. The downside is that the plant needs to be opened in Sketchup, which can take a long time or be impossible if it's huge. It also stores the plant or tree in the file size.
1. Open your plant or tree in a new SU file
2. Run Enscape and save a quick render for a thumbnail
3. Open Skatter and select your plant or tree as your Skattered Object
4. Change the random transform settings as desired
5. Leave the Host blank and hit the save in library button up near the top next to the name
6. Add your thumbnail, give it a name and save it to the harddrive.
7. Open your Skatter Library and you should see your new tree or plant
8. Open your file you are working on and you can go to the library and place away.
9. If you want to place just single instances instead of scattering, then use the "Pick Points" host option
Now build your library and have fun! Don't forget you can save combinations for Forest presets.
I've had this happen as well. It requires a renaming of the materials names. In Sketchup you can view your materials in the material window and then sort them by "list". That way you have the materials displayed as text. You can then quickly and easily see if there are any naming conflicts.
I don't dislike the idea of refining the keyword string to help differentiate it, but I think that in some cases it may create more work. Think about the materials that are actually copper or steel or plastic. You would have to go and the add the quotes to all of those materials, which would offset the benefit.
I'd like to have a color adjustment in the light tool for Sketchup. Just a simple kelvin scale / orange to blue / warm to cold slider, if possible. Perhaps the center of the slider could be pure white and override the slider so that the light reads the color applied to it instead.
I can confirm this bug as well
Hi guys and gals. I just wanted to share a small collection of 7 boulders I made for Sketchup for use in Enscape. They were made in 3ds max and imported and retextured in Sketchup. They a relatively high poly, so use in moderation. The extra polygons help in Enscape to overcome the lack of bump and displacement and still having realism.
Grab the whole set here and unzip into your components folder
Or download from the 3d Warehouse here -
EarthMover I totally understand your arguments, and we will weight them appropriately. But it's not as simple as it might seem on first sight.
We could support referencing some external .skp files, but there are obstacles:
- Referencing these skp files on more than one machine is difficult. Should one use absolute or relative paths? Search in subdirectories? Explicitly specify additional search directories? Revit users face some of these difficulties when referencing textures at the moment.
- For live updates to work we have to use the SketchUp Ruby API. For reading .skp files we would have to use the SketchUp C API. This means we would have to do the data export almost from scratch.
Alternatively we could provide a proprietary file format with export & import functions. But this does not come without drawbacks:
- Maintaining a proper file format is a lot of work, especially if you want to be compatible between multiple versions.
- Enscape tries to deliver value to a lot of customers on a regular basis. We wouldn't be able to do so, if new features also required a change in the file format.
Let me summarize this topic again: Providing proxy objects is not as simple as it might seem and we have to balance this feature request against others. But we've heard your call.
What if it is a system that doesn't "create" proxies, but is more of a "linking" method?
Say you click on something in the toolbar and it allows you to place a box in the scene. (similar to placing a light proxy)
When you select the box, it brings up an options window (similar to the light proxy)
In the options window there are 3 buttons - "import" "update" "relink" (perhaps relink and update are redundant and you only need two buttons?)
Clicking import will take you to the the hard drive to load an external .skp, .dae, .fbx or .obj. (similar to loading a skybox)
Once imported, the external model is loaded into the Enscape engine and the proxy object is then scaled to the size of the objects bounding box.
Other render engines create proxies in a way that they are loaded only at render time. Enscape needs to instead just load the object into the engine via an import so that it is in the engine. The dummy object in Sketchup is just used to control the location, scale and rotation of the object.
Regarding working between machines, the user would have to manually relink the proxies. It's the same in any render engine.
Obviously I know it is easier to say than to do. I trust your expertise in the matter. My suggestion is about keeping it simple. The beauty of Enscape is in it's simplicity and feeling like it's built for Sketchup. A prime example is the lighting system. It was beautifully implemented and feels extremely intuitive. I was envisioning a similar "flow" to the proxy system.