Posts by zoomer

REMINDER! If you encounter any issues with Enscape (e.g. crashes, installation problems) or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team directly through the Help Center or by using the Support button as detailed HERE! Thank you for your understanding.

    To clarify what we're referring to, I'm sending a video comparing data input between different versions.

    Bit off topic,

    but why are so many using the Metall Slider in between ?

    99,9% of Materials we have to deal with are either Dielectrics

    (Like Stone, Wood or Plastics) or Conductors (Metals).

    Everything in between would be a Semi Conductor and I doubt many

    render chip wafers or such things, beside maybe solar cells.

    So the Metall slider should usually be just either On or Off.

    I wonder why even Blender offers a Slider at all for PBR.

    I prefer VRAYs approach of controlling Reflection with IOR settings only.

    Dielectrics have strong and colored Diffuse and weak and non tinted Reflections

    if you look from perpendicular to it (around 5%),

    light can enter the Material (Sub Surface Scattering).

    Usually all dielectrics have a vary similar Reflection behavior.

    Conductors have no Diffuse at all but stronger tinted Reflections. Light will be either

    Reflected or absorbed as it can't enter the Material. Reflection values seen perpendicular

    to face largely vary from about 60-98 %.

    Usually all Materials have 100% Reflection if you look from glazing angles, as long

    as the Surface is not really rough.

    If a Conductor is oxidized or painted, those parts behave as standard Dielectrics,

    means it loses its metallic appearance.

    So are most people effectively rendering Semi Conductors or do I misunderstand the

    Metall Slider ?

    Is this more meant as a fake IOR value slider to control the Reflection amount for

    perpendicular view to a face ?

    (In this case I would set it to around 5 % for Dielectrics and 60 % up to 98 for Silver ?)

    The difference being that there are plenty of other VR and mixed reality devices already in the market, whereas iPhone was the first. Very different.

    There were tons of phones already, just not as smart.

    And there was initially no App Store at all.

    But there was the renounce of a physical keyboard that worked.

    And there was double tap to zoom into a web article and such things.

    Not much more than you could already do on some other existing phones.

    But much more comfortable, legible, easier and fun to use.

    I would not swear, but I think that it is likely that current VR glasses features

    may work similar better on a Vision Pro. And some may prefer the build quality

    or App quality and pay the price for it. While market leadership or mass market

    may not be Apples priority.

    For the initial question ....

    is ok run on Apple M3 chipsets?

    Yes, of course.

    M3 is again a usual little bit faster than previous M SoC releases.

    Usually available for a similar price as its predecessors.

    And once App optimizations for new M3 SoC features establish,

    you can expect even a bit more acceleration.

    M1 at presentation and my M1 Mini 16 GB were overwhelming.

    M1 Max and Ultra not that much because of scaling issues caused by a too small cache.

    M2 also looked like just adding a few cores and some overclocking with more heat

    to bring a noticeable improvement of about 15% here and there.

    And when A17 3nm came I also wondered why there are no architectural improvements

    visible. Only slightly faster again but no more battery life in on iPhones or M3 in MBPs.

    But in real life, Blender GPU rendering benchmarks, with M2 Max/Ultra's better scaling

    made the M2 Ultra twice as fast as M1 Ultra.

    OK, this was just finally fixing the scaling problem, not a real improvement. But for me it

    does not make sense to buy a reduced price M1 Ultra Studio, for a reduced price similar to

    a current M2 Max, which has similar real world performance but newer WIFI and such things.

    Same for M2 vs M3.

    M1 Max and Ultra was a bad M1 deal, but M2 Ultra got finally a reasonable "workstation".

    M3 did not deliver the expectations of finally going 3 nm, which we honestly expected

    already for the larger M1 SoCs already. CPU cores again not improved, just a few more

    cores and maybe some extra heat again.

    But M3 RT hardware acceleration, even in an Apple first generation release

    (basically already a 2nd release, if you count in the fail of adding RT to A16/M2)

    and Dynamic Memory, when supported or even optimized work really well and bring

    a real advantage for M3s.

    Overall M3 is a bit faster as usual but for GPU it looks like it is more something like

    double as fast. M3 is basically finally the SoC I initially expected the larger M1s to be.

    But what is more important for me that I have some trust that the hard Apple times from

    2012-2020 are over, where they left power or pro users left in the rain with a trash can

    that was disappointing at release and not upgraded but sold for the same price for

    6 years.

    Now it looks again like Apple offers upgrades and improvements as soon as available,

    so you can buy/upgrade to a new Mac Pro mobile/desktop at any point you need one.

    Yes, they will be better in a year or few months again, but at the moment you get

    the best available and not only a shelf warmer.

    Hmmm, in Apps that already support M3 well, like Blender or some render engines,

    so far it looks like M3 Max is faster than a M2 Ultra.

    CPU is quite ok too.

    M1 did not scale well so was underwhelming for Max and Ultra.

    M2 wasn't much faster than M1 but finally scaled well and therefore made Mac Studios useful.

    And M3 finally brought RT hardware acceleration and dynamic memory,

    which seems to work great also.

    Regarding this development and power differences in Mx versions,

    so far I did not see any really valid offers of price reduced M1 machines over M2 versions.

    And so I would not expect that for M2 vs M3 Studios too.

    (Unlikely someone will sell these for half the MSRP or less)

    But of course, if it is not urgent and you can wait for another year or two,

    M4s will be better than M3 again.

    It was the first iPhone.

    There were already thousands of "smart" phones, blackberries, WAP (?) cell phones with internet access

    on the market. Apple just made one that was easy to use and fun.

    (I wonder, if Apple did not have developed an iPhone for whatever reason, how far would we have come

    along until today - from a Nokia Communicator)

    Simplified for the Vision Pro,

    An AR/VR/?R headset that may work in a way potential new users expect and like - or not.

    Highly doubtful. It's 100% a niche, early adopter device at $3,500

    For me that sounds a bit like Steve Ballmer talking about the first iPhone.

    We will see and In 1-2 years we will know more.

    The inclusion of TwinMotion for Revit with the AEC Collection adds a significant twist to the plot. The Unreal Engine handles bigger files and provides better quality than what Enscape is (currently) capable of achieving.

    I am not sure.
    I always preferred Enscape's more precise ArchViz looking GI quality.

    And the better suited Material Library, Virtual Sky, .... in the past.

    But over the last 3 years the difference got smaller and will in the future.

    I think, full Unreal would already offer more features in this regard than I will

    ever wish for my work for the next decade.

    It is just that full UE is just a monstrous bloatware with non industry standard

    UI/GUI that is not accessible to mere humans.

    So I would prefer Enscapes UI nevertheless, or even Twinmotion.

    (mainly for a perpetual license (!) offer and entourage spread offers)

    And for non-Windows/Nvidia users, like Apple ARM users, there are still some

    downsides, that may stay that way for the near future.

    It may need 2-3 years lag for TM to include all UE bells and whistles for ArchViz

    but you can be confident that TM will evolve.

    So from an Apple ARM users view, for now, I think Enscape's quality and usability

    is better.

    Enscape's version may not be ready for now and may just test and adapt

    to (mandatory) VW's SP1 update.

    I do not think it will take too long.

    Can't test or verify though.

    A) I am on M1 Mac and B) I do not want to ask for another trial again ...

    Sorry, I was kidding.

    I did not test the Mac Beta so far (as I use Vectorworks or Bricscad)

    but I am pretty sure there would not be any problem on my M1 Mini,

    as long a Macbook Air M1 is recommended.

    The Mac Mini seems to just be forgotten in the Spec Sheet.