Posts by Clemens Musterle

Please cast your votes in our two ongoing feedback polls here and here!

    Hi minh and welcome to our forums!

    The difference in noise that you can see on the sideboard are related to different techniques used to denoise the rendering during walkthrough or for capturing. In some cases the denoising in capturing can currently result in these speckles on surfaces with a material with medium roughness.
    Unfortunately there's currently not much you can do, except try if other roughness settings of the material look ok and reduce the effect.

    We're already working on an improved denoising solution for capturings!

    Curious if there's any estimate for when this is getting fixed. I can't use 3.5.3 until this is resolved.

    There are currently two issues at hand here. The original issue reported at the beginning of this thread is unfortunately a known limitation in certain indoor scenes with our current denoising solution for video renderings. We're internally working on completely overhauled solution for the next major release.

    The recently reported much more severe problem (video export image quality bug) is in fact a bug that unfortunately was released with 3.5.3. We've fixed the cause and hope to ship it with the next service pack release soon.

    Is there any artificial light source in the area that could light up the scene? If yes, maybe make it brighter. The "false lighting" you see comes from indirect lighting inaccuracies, the darker the overall scene, the higher the exposure setting of the camera and with a very high exposure value small inaccuracies like this can stand out quite strong as in your screenshot.

    Which version of Enscape are you using and what are your visual and renderer settings?

    Using 3.5 and hardware ray tracing (renderer settings), should solve that look. If you don't have the option to use hardware ray tracing, try reducing the "Ambient Brightness" slider in the visual settings. Also switching to Ultra quality should improve the lighting quality there.

    Hope that helps!

    Unfortunately 3.5.2 doesn't fix the over-exposure / everything beeing too bright bug that is present in VR mode. Is there any workaround other than downgrading? Currently I am dialing down the expose setting manually, but things get a bit dark then.

    We'll provide a fix for that issue in the next service pack release soon. Unfortunately it didn't make it into the 3.5.2.

    Is there some sort of logic I can follow to avoid automatic downscaling of my materials? I'm not sure I understand why Enscape would do that on it's own, when it's very simple to replace the material maps with higher/lower resolution files individually as needed. Plenty of memory available.

    Here's another example of a nice Carrara Marble that loses a lot of the vein definition. It's scaled per the Poliigon guidance (8'-2" x 8'-2") within SketchUp and Enscape, but it being compressed it seems still.

    Right now, there's no option to avoid that. We discussed adding something like a check-box to the material editor like rifkin suggested, but it wasn't a priority yet. The reason we do it, was quite frankly, because people are simply not aware how much memory such high resolution textures consume and it'd be a cumbersome manual task to go over potentially hundreds of materials and manually downscale their texture maps. Running out of GPU memory is actually one of the most common issues people are facing with Enscape and texture maps can eat up a significant portion of that.

    While the current behavior might not be ideal to do a close-up shot of a textured surface the texture resolution is usually high enough not to be noticeable for any 'regular' camera perspective.

    For what it's worth I'm not aware of many complaints in that regard, however we might revisit the parameters for future releases as we see that more people upgrade to newer GPUs with more VRAM.

    Hi Tim

    what's the texture scaling in the material? Enscape automatically downscales textures that have a small scale in the scene to avoid unnecessary memory consumption. Thus if you increase the scale in the material the 4k resolution texture should look notebly different from the 2k texture. We support up to 16k resolution for largest scale use-cases, e.g. using satellite images on an environment model.

    Here's an existing thread on the topic:
    RE: Material albedo maps rendering at low quality - blurry

    Thanks for this but, as far as i am aware, there is no option to select the alpha channel when export to jpeg.

    That's correct. Can you select png first & make sure the "apply alpha channel" checkbox is not set, then switch back to jpg and try rendering again?

    This might be a settings glitch.


    I'm getting some weird black blocks for some reason, and the color got really weird (not supposed to be that yellow) But this gets me in the ballpark of what I'm trying to do. I'll fiddle around with the settings to get it looking right.


    Hey davidhard , those blocky black artifacts were a problem we've had in one of our Preview version releases. Did you upgrade to the official release 3.5 version yet?

    This blue tint is caused by indirect lighting by the sky, as probably some of the building's geometry is omitted that would otherwise block the visibility of the sky. Unfortunately without reducing the polygon count you only have limited options. But you can try to place a single, big plane (thus it only adds 2 triangles to the polygon count) right left outside the camera's view into the hallway. If you've surpassed the polygon limit our algorithm tries to select geometry that has a big surface area relative to it's polygon count first, so it's likely that it will consider this plane for the indirect light calculation and it'll block the sky's light.

    jamesjordn we're not automatically changing quality settings, except for VR (where quality is always shifted by one level due to performance).

    What makes you think the quality in the 2nd image is decreased except for the smoother quality settings transition?

    If it's the slightly blue tint of the lighting in the hallway, this is probably because the added furniture in the room increased the polygon count in your scene so that some walls of the hallway outside the view cannot be considered anymore for global illumination, as we currently have a fixed polygon limit for that. This doesn't mean that the quality level itself is reduced.

    The usual lag you experience when switching quality levels comes from shader compilation, as there are a lot of quality level specific settings in shader code.

    Now when you switch back and forth between quality levels the shaders for this level will already be compiled, because we cache them during runtime.

    Clemens Musterle Thanks so much for the reply.

    I have not tried version 3.5 yet in VR. You are right, the goal would be for noise to be reduced significantly in VR. Do you recommend Ultra for VR?

    Is there a clear distinction for the different rendering modes: Basic, Medium, High, and Ultra? If there is some verbiage on these options? If there is, I can let my team members know this for better usage in design and presentations. Thanks

    If you strive for best lighting quality, yes I'd recommend Ultra for VR given a powerful enough setup to run it fluently.

    Here you can find an overview of the different quality levels (including a passage how they map to VR):…gebase/rendering_quality/

    tldr; To reach higher frame rates VR quality is basically reduced by one for each level, thus Ultra in VR is close to "High Quality" for regular viewing.

    Hi fraserpries

    what you see here is a so called Moiré pattern. It's a common problem in digital images/videos that also occurs even on regular digital photographs.

    Cause is the very high frequency detail in the vertical siding relative to your video's resolution. Thus you can try to increase the rendering resolution (also check if DLSS is enabled in the Renderer settings & try disabling it) - this should improve the outcome at least when viewed with a high resolution monitor. Another option would be an image filter to counter the effect in some video post processing software.

    Hope that helps!

    Hey jnurnberger

    thanks for the question. Technically yes you could bake diffuse indirect lighting - there are a lot of different approaches game engines used or still use, but the trend in general is to do these computations in real-time, because all baking solutions come with a lot of complexity and their own hurdles.
    That's the main reason we're not really considering it at the moment and focus on improved real-time GI to be honest.

    Reflections cannot be baked properly without severe loss in quality & correctness.

    Actually with 3.5 we feel that we've improved noise quite substantially for quality 'Ultra' as we now use a (real-time) light caching technique in conjunction with enabled hardware ray-tracing. Did you try VR with the new release yet?

    Hi cgranger

    there's no option to disable texture filtering in Enscape at the moment, as most use cases are for photo-realistic rendering.

    The only workaround that comes to mind would be to actually scale up the texture into a higher resolution, but with nearest filtering. This way the filtered result in Enscape will look mostly the same up close, however if the camera is further away you will still see blurry results, as it will use mip maps, which are again filtered lower resolution versions of the texture.

    So I'm afraid this kind of rendering style is not really feasible with Enscape right now.