Posts by Tim

Quote from mannyl

Hi -

I have been looking into this issue myself since I have an 8 year old workstation with an Nvidia GTX 1080, which by the way performs great with Enscape.

The main issue I have found is the power supply requirement for the new Nvidia RTX series. I have a 280 Watt power supply in my trusty old Dell T5400 and I would need a dual-slot rated at 320 W to run the new 30x monster cards. Upgrading is not an option. Is best to buy a newer more powerful system with no bottlenecks.

That said, the RTX 2080ti is a hell of a card by many metrics and far less expensive than the newer generation. I would get that one for my T5400 even if I could only get 80% out of it due to the limitations of my current chipset.

Display More

280W system supply with a 1080? Yikes. AND it's a low end OEM PSU? Surprised it's lasted this long to be honest. I have a Corsair 750W PSU for my 980 lol. And the same one on my other 1080ti machine. The perks of building your own PC.

Quote from pjmuller

I know this is an old thread but wondering if there are any thoughts on how the new RTX 3080 compares with the 2080 Ti and if it would be a good choice.

I'm particularly curious about GPUs that can handle large models.

I'd imagine the 3x series additional RTX cores won't be a massive help (yet) in Enscape. Not until we get full-on RTX raytracing in Enscape which will be some time (if ever). Compared to a 2080ti, it'd be wasted money IMO if "upgrading". More like a sidestep. Buying new, I'd be buying a 30x series no questions. The biggest thing that seems to matter at the moment is GPU memory and the 10x, 20x and 30x series all have plenty for now.

I'm plenty happy with my 1080ti, actually. The 3x series is tempting, though. Especially for my other gaming machine with my trusty GTX980...

Quote from renderwiz

This is simply a known limitation of Enscape currently. If you need perfectly clean glossy (ie. blurry) reflections, look to another renderer until it is (hopefully) sorted out.

My current solution has been to eliminate using emissive materials altogether. But hat's been difficult, since I frequently run into limitations on how many light objects Enscape allows per model, forcing me to use emissive materials.

Ive narrowed it down to reflections, bump and emissive materials. All three together is a no no.

Quote from joshnewzealand

vjaramillo has it right, Note Enscape does not do absolute lumin value correctly. For example a wide beam will emit more light than a narrow beam. Even though they are both set at the same lumin value. Each IES file needs to be calibrated separately by eyeballing it....in fact a very narrow beams needs to be X10 or X20 the actual lumin value on the datasheet.

I agree. My projects rely heavily on artificial lighting (commercial/retail spaces). I often end up boosting the light object output values WAY higher than actual lumin/watt detailed in the light fixture specification. Which makes it a bit more difficult to use Enscape as a tool to refine our lighting plans. IES files work better than standard "spot" light objects, but still some general tweaking to get a good/accurate results.

Thanks for the response Clemens. I've got some more homework now. Poliigon offers guidance, but I've had mixed results: How to use Poliigon textures in Enscape

Wait, so Normal maps aren't supported yet even through they are in the drop down menu? I don't understand. I just got a bunch of quality textures from Poliigon and have been sort of struggling with what files work well with Enscape. Bump/Normal ang Gloss/Refl being problematic.

Can we please get a data sheet on this or some sort of guidance? I'm hitting the wall trying to light my large models and getting pretty frustrated. I began replacing light objects with self-illuminated materials but it creates way more noise than I can tolerate. So in the end, I'm stuck removing light sources altogether and losing the detail I want.

I'm gonna bump this to the top, because I frequently have this same thing happen- notably when doing decor/signs and using logo's that are PNG's given to me by clients. My quick fix has been to trace around the PNG image manually but that's tedious and a little sloppy. Or sometimes I create a quick texture out of the PNG but that becomes a lot of extra texture work as well. Hoping to do things inside SU/Enscape vs manipulating the image in Photoshop/Illustrator/etc.

Hmm- I agree for a studio scene that simply making it night time is a workaround. But that's not going to work for my typical models, as they are large building with windows and exterior elements, etc, that require light coming through the windows. The issue still stands, either way, that sunlight is ignoring geometry to some extent. And it's causing some confusion when trying to accurately model artificial light/materials.

Quote from Demian Gutberlet

Helstern , do you have a couple of emmisive light sources place in the scene? If so, could you perhaps try to also place normal lights around the scene? Via our Enscape Objects -> the Lights you can see there that is. Also, especially if the lamp if the lamp is only using an emissive material, please add a Disk light in front of it for example and let that be the main light source (and turn the brightness up if necessary).

I'm curious why you recommend a Disk Light as the main light source in that lamp as opposed to a Sphere inside, as the blog recommends? Do you mean just adding an area light?

https://blog.enscape3d.com/bes…ices-lighting-in-sketchup

This looks a LOT like the light bleed issue I have in another post. I used this model as a reference example.

This is unfortunate, as it's common to not fully model every thickness everywhere in a models.

See example of how much this impacts lighting, globally.

Simple 6 sided closed box drawn - no wall wall/floor/ceiling thickness - just planes joining together.

(lights) versions should match each other. (no lights) should match each other as well. They don't. Clearly, light bleed in daytime is causing some problems illuminating incorrectly. I've also attached two without lights where you can clearly see the light bleed impacts on global illumination.

"

Quote from Rick Marx

This will introduce a bit of noise into the scene

This is an understatement...Also undesirable results from only using emissive materials for lighting (i.e.- not enough light lumens).

Quote from Rick Marx

Hi Tim

Thanks a lot for your report.

At least at the moment this behavior is normal and due to technical reasons in order to save performance - in this specific project this behavior is also more noticeable than usual since so many lights are used in the scene.

What you can instead do, is try using emissive surfaces instead of rectangular lights. This will introduce a bit of noise into the scene instead, but it may be less off-putting for you compared to what you experience at the moment, as these emissive light sources will act a bit differently.

Let me know if you then like to share any further feedback with us!

Display More

Thanks for looking into it.

This is difficult for me since our work requires a lot of artificial lighting. We use Enscape as a method of working out the overall lighting design and have found it useful up until these larger projects. I have used emissive materials before, specifically for lighting the interior of refrigerated cases, displays, etc, but they don't typically provide enough light or act the same way that a normal fluorescent/LED tube light, for example, would. And as you noted, noise becomes an issue with emissive materials.

Is there a fact/data sheet available on what the light source limits are so users like me can account for this before getting so far in?

And of course, as a feature request, please increase the amount of lights allowed.

Following this.

I can see what is happening the more I have looked at it now. The further away from the light source I get, the less each light source collides with geometry properly. This is a major issue for me. See attached new version where you can see the light on the 2nd to top shelf interacts as expected when close and ignore the geometry when moving the camera further away. Lights clip through geometry the further back you go, eventually lighting up with the wall, when they obviously shouldn't.

What is happening here? As I move forward and backward (zooming in and zooming out) of a view, there are lights that suddenly turn on as I get further away and turn off as I get closer. Is this some sort of anomaly with screen space reflections? There are no lights in this area that should be illuminating these areas like this.

This is making it very difficult to artificially illuminate my model to coordinate with my actual lighting plan for the project. Auto-expose and auto-contrast is off. All I've done with the attached image examples is to move a few feet forward/back, locating the point of view at which this happens in this location. It happens everywhere else in my model as well (large grocery store).

I'm having issues with the sun bleeding through the corners of my models, particularly where it is just simple planes meeting (no thickness to walls/ceilings/floors). Example attached of a simple rectangle box with a standard color material painted on all surfaces. If I add wall/ceiling thickness the light bleed stops.

Quote from Curtis

In the field of CGI, image noise is that variable which allows for quality evaluation after a 3D rendering process. It is mostly caused when the rendering engine does not pick up the appropriate amount of lighting, causing different types of distorted effects.

I agree, but it seems to be more prevalent in the latest release. I can't confirm that, though. Could be a mix of a number of other variables.