Posts by twiceroadsfool

Reminder: If you encounter any issues with Enscape (including 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.

    I think thats a great move.

    I hadnt considered the points that bleonard and renderwiz brought up, but since reading their responses, its been stewing in my head... Because we place the RFA's, but we also use them just in Revit (in Realistic mode) for some exports. And for those, all of our current RPC work great. If it meant having to have an entirely different library for that, it would be a bit of a hardship.

    The good news is: If we (my group) had to just stay on Enscape 2.7 long term, that would be sufficient.

    We love Enscape, and we love Archvision... But both are ancillary to our main processes. Which means its more important they not create hiccups or hardships in our workflows. TBH, the moment this whole "situation" started, we had to start considering replacements for both tools, because... we just dont have time for this sort of stuff.

    Hey everyone-

    Not a frequenter on this forum, but was watching this thread as we, too, are customers of both Enscape and Archvision RPC, so we were a little curious "what the heck" was going on. I dont have much to add that hasnt been said already, but just a few notes:

    1. I dont truly believe the "overall count" of the assets in each ecosystem are whats paramount here, but just to clarify (as a stickler for getting the technicalities correct): There are at least 4,500 assets in the RPC all access environment. The only reason i know this, is- much like many of you are doing with the Enscape Assets currently- 4 years ago i got annoyed with how the RPC Dashboard inserts and names its families. So we took the time to place every single one of them, and then save them to our library as individual RFA's, named and classified with object data the way we want them. Currently, there are 4,701 families in that directory. There is a chance some of them are duplicates, but our library is better curated than most, so im going to doubt there are 100 or 200 dupes in there. Having said that:

    2. I also am in the camp of "Im disappointed," but i see how this affects people varying, depending on what the group does for a living.

    We arent a viz house, at all. We essentially jump in to Enscape to review models with clients, to talk through modeling techniques, and designs, and things of that nature. We plop the RPC's in to give context, pretty quickly. Given that the RPC's still work in Revit, and we can use the same RFA's we have currently to port to Assets from Enscape in the future, we can (for the most part) skirt by this unharmed.

    BUT... Paying for all of the RPC's, and having them NOT work in Enscape, is a bummer. If push comes to shove, and RPC really does stop working in Enscape in the future, there is a good chance we will just stop using RPC, because its something we do for flash and flair now, but its not a requirement for what we do for a living.

    If you are a visualization house, i imagine the RPC ecosystem is a bit more important, since it covers a LOT of products, and not just Revit/Enscape. Given there are a lot of viz engines AND a lot of asset engines now, i guess these sort of "divorces" are bound to happen, as vendors try to "corral" us users in to camps of Chevy vs Ford.

    3. To speak out of turn (because its what i do) i really think cooler heads need to prevail, in this situation.

    I understand both camps POV: Enscape wants to focus on their asset ecosystem, and Archvision wants their "shiny new stuff" to be present, not their "older stuff." Hell, usually a vendor in Archvisions position does the opposite: Forcing "friendly competitors" to stay a few versions BEHIND, so their native product has a leg up.

    ALL of that to say, i originally reached out to both vendors, as i was concerned there was actually something improper going on, and didnt want to be funneling money to a company that was doing something they shouldnt be doing. But both companies kind of told the same story, and it sounds like its just "we dont agree, so were gonna make our stuff not play together anymore."

    As a single user at a tiny company... That sucks to read. Makes me second guess both products, honestly. But i guess im glad im not in visualization, so it doesnt affect us ALL that much. :)