I've noticed the partially downloaded library still works in the browser + in revit if I check the "offline assets" button but then click the "use existing" button. But problem with this is that none of these assets work + actually load in enscape, possibly corrupted due to the incomplete download? Thankfully, unchecking "offline assets" and being forced to use the much-slower online only library fixes this.
Redownloading my library for the 3.0 assets (I wish there was an option to auto-update instead of having to redownload everything!)
However, I can never get past 75% of the library downloaded. Every time I get an "Asset download error", claiming either internet connection or troubles with read-only. First time I just tried downloading into my old directory which worked fine in past versions. This failed. So then I deleted everything and started over in a fresh directory, but I get the same exact error. I can't download my assets offline, at all. What gives?
I'm not having internet troubles. No issues with sustained downloads for anything else. I know it isn't on my end. Enscape itself fails at the exact same part in the download, about 75% of the way there.
Ok, looks like I'll try exporting at normal.
I remember when Enscape bumped the resolution up, was a nice surprise - but I'm pretty sure the black screen on mobile is a problem that is more recent than that change, so I think it has more to do with recent changes/backend on Enscape's viewer than it does the resolution of the image. Especially if these panos' work perfectly fine on 3rd party tools on mobile (though I haven't checked that).
This one works for me. How odd, because none of mine work on mobile, only on PC. Does this one work for you folks?
I'm wondering if this has something to do with the export setting. I export on high quality every time - was this one exported on normal quality? I'm wondering if there's a hard resolution limit for mobile that fails if you do cardboard or high quality export setting. But it's odd because a month or so ago this problem didn't exist at all.
Need batch rendering for pano and video. If you think people are just using Enscape for renderings, then the marketshare will be quite small...
+1 for this big time! Most of our render time is sunken in on panos, and it would streamline things immensely if I could batch these out (including auto-upload and auto-save QR codes to a folder). Right now I need to spend a good chunk of my workday or evening babysitting pano's when its time to export...
Reporting in here. Non of our panoramas are working on mobile... big annoyance to have to let clients know to open these only on PC/mac.
EDIT: This happens for normal panoramas, not cardboard version.
Turn down sun brightness & increase the ambient light brightness. Ambient light = any part of the image that isn't being hit by sunlight or artificial light. By having sun at the highest setting, you're telling enscape to focus most of the lighting to be only where the sun is hitting.
Personally I go for a very low sun value (as it's a very dominant light source anyways), with a high artificial light value and a medium ambient light value (or a full ambient light value if I don't have artificial light sources yet). I then adjust the contrast, brightness and exposure of the image till I get a result that looks balanced.
I've noticed when doing renders, you get the most balanced results by having a seperate set of settings for exterior shots vs interior shots and turning off "auto" mode for things like contrast and exposure. Adjusting for the situation you're taking renders in gives the best result, but keeping things on auto I found is "good enough" for things like video or walkthroughs.
Thanks for the help guys, I tried the tools mentioned above. Marzipano ended up being exactly what we needed, and was pretty easy to code into our website. We have a test page set up implementing a few different methods of visual story-telling, all rendered out of Enscape if anyone wants to check it out.
It's still a work in progress:
This looks great! We've had similar irks about the web exports. Even though they are so useful in terms of being able to naturally navigate through a space, the performance is much worse than desktop and clients seem to struggle with using them when we aren't meeting in person. I'm contemplating if it'll be worth the time to do something similar to this vs. just linking panorama's with still images in a presentation set.
So, I was running into this issue last night trying the custom asset library myself for the first time. I've learned it's important that you make sure you correctly set your asset's origin inside your 3D editor to be exactly where you need (especially if you are pulling models from a big model pack), and also to check the scale. Blender (and the enscape asset importer) for example operates at a scale of 1 unit = 1 m, but for the assets I was using the scale the model was expecting 1 unit = 1cm.
I had to make sure my model was isolated from the model pack I got it from into its own new project in blender, with the origin point of the asset correctly set (I just used the "snap origin to geometry" function). I also made sure to set the scale of the exported model to be at 0.10 instead of 1, to get the model into actual cm size and not meter size. Then on import to enscape, I double check the scaling it reports - if it says that the Z axis is 11.11m big for a coat, then I know I need to shrink the scale by moving the decimal so it'd read 1.111m big, which is scale-accurate. If your assets were made at a correct scale, you shouldn't need to adjust anything here other than moving a decimal place.
After all the above, only then was I able to get the assets to spawn in at the correct position + scale.
I've managed to get it looking close to what I want with some tricks + adjusting the ripple transparency, but its still not really as good as what a proper bump map would be like in the threads I've linked.
I've embedded a modeled-in-place (just as a test) pane of glass inside the glass I'm painting with the ripple texture. This new glass uses the revit "glass sheet" material template that lets me specify roughness, which enscape reads. The combination between the internal rough glass pane plus the painted "ripple" material is a pane of glass that looks like it has ripples, and also reflects light as glass should. However it's not perfect - for some reason, Enscape doesn't render the roughness-effect on objects in the foreground (such as on the sill of the window), which means the dark ripple material shows through very clearly where the sill is, breaking the illusion. Also, I still think this workaround still renders the glass way too dark.
However, I've also discovered that if the roughness is over 0.60, Enscape switches to a simpler way of handling reflections that multiplies the light at oblique angles... which actually helps the glass + ripple glass combo look a lot brighter & more realistic, IMO. If roughness is below 0.60, I get much more accurate reflections, plus I don't need to have the the rough glass be quite as blurry... but then the glass is too dark again at oblique angles. I'm still deciding what I like more.
The first picture was with the internal pane of glass at 0.60 roughness and 10% reflection (any higher quickly causes the entire pane of glass to white out!), the second picture was that same pane at 0.59 roughness & 50% reflection.
Here's the same material, except this time with transparency set to 30 and the bump map set to 1000 (just for effect):
As you can see, revit now correctly renders the material as glass, but in doing so throws out all of the bump detail. Removing the transparency mask has no effect.
I had set it that high just so I could see what the extremes of the effect are. The transparency is set to 5 because the moment you go above 5, you lose the ability to do a transparency mask or a bump mask - Enscape renders the entire pane as smooth glass, and the only setting that matters at that point is the glossiness setting.
The best I could do is the below - but as you can see, all that it is doing is applying a "ribbing" decal that doesn't refract light like glass would. The glass is far to dark & noisy still too, even though I'm using a smoother mask. Everything that is glass-like about the material is completely lost until I set transparency above 5... but then I lose all of the ribbing.
Since I run off of Revit 2018, I'm beginning to wonder if for some reason Enscape is incapable of showing bump maps on glass unless I'm using Sketchup or Revit 2019+? Seems odd though since revit's renderer supports this functionality just fine, and I can get Enscape to show displacement maps on my version! I only say this since in this thread, the user was able to get a proper bump map to show on glass perfectly fine with Revit, something I cannot do:
This isn't a glass-effect bump map though right?
I tried using a cutout mask w/ a matching bump map then using the paint tool to add this "ribbing" on to a glass panel like in that guide, and while this worked to achieve 2D ribbing that reacts with light, the light doesn't diffuse through it properly because Enscape doesn't treat the bump map/cutout as a glass-like material. The result is Enscape fully shadows the ribbings, causing the entire glass panel to look dark - especially at an oblique angle, where it completely blacks out.
I'm looking for a way to achieve a true bump map added to glass, like what was somehow achieved in the first link I posted.
Searched high and low and can't seem to find anyone else with this issue.
According to this thread I should be able to apply a bump map to a glass texture and have Enscape show the relief on the glass:
However, no matter what I try... I cannot replicate this. Adding a bump map to the glass does nothing - I can only see a perfectly smooth sheet of glass. If I turn my transparency down to 5, the bump map finally displays, but the "glassiness" of the texture is completely lost.
What am I doing wrong? Attached is the image with transparency set to 5, which has the ribbing show but isn't translucent at all.
I experimented with using cutouts to achieve a "ribbed look", which at least gets me to a point where I can see through the ribbing, but again - it doesn't look like glass at all, and at oblique angle the ribbing cutouts block all light and the glass turns to looking black. For what it's worth I also experimented with using transparency masks but these also did absolutely nothing. The only thing that Enscape is capable of rendering as glass-like for me is only 100% perfectly smooth glass. This is a big problem as privacy/ribbed glass is a pretty common design feature I'd like to show off.
The 2070 is definitely noticeably better and if you work in VR a lot you'll really appreciate the extra headroom. I have a 2080 laptop and I still run into performance problems on enscape with VR on anything over medium settings, requiring me to need to drop my render resolution by up to 50% on an Index (which to be fair, is a pretty high resolution headset).
For what it's worth, if you're looking at a laptop that is ~15" screen size, then I think the 4K is a bit of a waste. It'd be hard to notice at that screen size. However, I think if you're using a bigger laptop then the 4K will be a bit more useful, especially for productivity.
If you're fine running your VR at a lower resolution or draft/medium settings, then the 2060 can still do it well, depending on model complexity. I don't use the VR feature enough personally, and would be fine with a 2060 if I was in your shoes. I'd probably use VR a lot more if collaboration tools/virtual meeting tools were a thing with it though! Right now its only useful to get a sense of scale for personal design review.
Awesome, this is a great idea. It'd help a lot speeding up the "polish" stage of my enscape outputs. It's hard to justify to clients why placing books around bookcases, stuff on tables, or shelves being decorated is worth the time spent. Especially since doing this manually one by one is a very slow process with how Enscape loads in assets to revit (though the use of an offline library has helped speed this up a lot).
Throwing in a +1 here.
Even though we don't use macs, most of our clients use macs. It'd be great if the exportable projects could also be exported in a mac-compatible format, that way our clients could receive a 3D model and be able to walk around it themselves without us needing to make an entire meeting out of it.
Changing the runtime to 2.8 indeed runs much better, thank you! But you are correct in that only projects saved out with 2.8 actually load. I may have to revert my enscape install in the meantime, at least for when its time to do a web export.