Posts by Gadget

    When editing keyframes and clicking "apply" (*) the viewport automatically moves to the first keyframe camera position while remaining stating that it's (x/y) - using < and > will move to the previous and next keyframe from the one that was just edited. (I notice this specifically when updating the time of day.)


    * Feature request: I would find it way more intuitive/useful if the [Apply] button was actually a [Cancel] button - clicking on next/previous/insert would automatically save any changes. Click on the [back] button would ask if you wanted to update the keyframe. Clicking on the new [Cancel] button would revert to the last saved keyframe.

    I am trying to use more assets in my models, but I am finding that a few of them have an "origin" point of placement that drops them below the face I am clicking on, or embeds them within a wall or they are facing the wall rather than the room.


    I also am missing the 'auto selection' feature where an asset placed automatically became selected within SU: I have to place an asset, then select it, then move/orientate it. (There are several requests to incorporate a feature to take care of the last step, the middle step shouldn't be necessary and I am now finding that the first step does not even work as I expect.)

    When I render, I have a specific x,y ratio (for printing A3/4) that does not relate to the screen aspect ratio. When I render from a normal Perspective view, the screen's X is maintained and it is "grown" in the Y to accommodate the predetermined exported ratio. However when I render from an Orthagraphic view, the screen's Y is maintained and it is "cropped" in the X.


    (The 'safe frame' does show this, but it should be consistent no matter the view mode.)

    The [H] has been there from the start, however I have found that you can only get access to the "flight modes" when the help bar is active {<- bug}.


    "Perspective" mode is 'normal' 3 point perspective where the x,y and z axis have vanishing points and it looks as you would expect IRL.


    "Two Point Perspective" is normally used by architects who don't like the parallex effect of sky-scrapers looking thinner at the top when you look at them. (Many architectural photographers will also 'correct' images to straighten the verticals too.)


    "Orthographic" is a graphic-design style with no perspective - used to output elevations, plans and 2D isometric views.

    (especially desert, which makes up 33% of the world)

    Depends on your definitions, but 95% of the world's population live on 10% of the land - should probably be more bias towards the greenary that the majority of people actually see when they go outside.

    (In theory there should be waaay more agricultural plants. )


    {edit... just thinking: a desert is kinna defined by it's lack of greenary and a rain-forest by it's abundance - that would probably skew the figures too.}

    Also note that Enscape has taken on dedicated UI developers - they may be looking at an over-all cohesive look/feel to Enscape that we users are not aware of.


    It's their job to produce an end result that meets the requirements: I think that asking to approve their work before even pushing out a preview is not showing very much faith in their abilities or the Enscape team for selecting them. (I still reserve the right to trash-talk the preview, but at least give them a chance!)

    There have been a few requests for various layers, but I would suggest that the noise/dirt is more for the gloss map rather than the bump.


    (My suggestion was to make the slider "Contrast" and have the start point in the middle with -100% <-> +100%)

    There are many users who use Enscape for landscape design and product visualisation - not architecture.


    I would like to see some MORE DENSE shrubs that I can use for more realistic hedgerows and verges. (Heather, gorse, yew, birch, cypress...)


    Vegetation can be scaled up and down and embedded into ground plane, so I'm not too bothered about heights but I would like to see each asset have at least 4/5 random variations (or maybe not-so random).


    I don't think vegetation needs to be transparent, however I think it could be more useful for PEOPLE assets to be transparent.



    Basically I think Enscape are doing a good job on trying to balance a massive user-base that covers the globe with a variety of uses. There will always be some things that could be improved for everyone - concentrating on one specific geographic region or user type (or platform) will always make the rest of the people who use the software feel left out, ignored and less important. Well done to the Enscape team for keeping this balance.

    Do you realise that the "grass" texture takes the colour of the underlying material? So if you use a "Pine forest floor" texture then you will get 'grass' with a better texture than a smooth clay surface.

    I am 110% behind the concept of realism, however the reality is that I am only really interested in the aesthetics of the final product - I don't really mind if you show a rainbow by working out the physics and mathematics to calculate the sun's angle and the refractive index of water droplets in the sky or if you just slap a filter on the camera lens.


    I would like to be able to create scenes where the trees and buildings fade into the fog and visibility is reduced so far that you wouldn't want to drive in it.



    (If you are aiming towards realism, then there should also be a tie-in between the sun's shadow sharpness and the fog. And the bloom of distant lights should be greater.)

    Brilliant walk-through and model - well done. A few minor things I would comment on to improve it...


    On your initial fly-through, it would have been really cool to project the google map onto the ground-plane of the model. (I've done this a few times - you loose the HQ definition, but it's on the ground of neighboring properties so I think you gain more than you loose.)


    I would also lengthen a couple of the scenes to a minimum of 4 sec.


    (Oh, and your roof-top veranda lights stick out of your roof ;) )

    I know what it's currently doing, but the effect of fog is that you get a straight line band across the horizon:


    With 100% fog, then yes - I would expect the lower half to be 100% white. With 50% I would expect the lower half to be 50% obscure. (Hence the feature request ;) )


    Currently I would have to do some post-production on any external shots to get it to look right - so I may as well keep it off and do the whole fog effect in post. (Or I spend the time to model a HUGE ground plane, Or use fences/hedges/walls to obscure the horizon... which negates the whole point of the fog effect.)



    Second fog request:

    That there is another setting for visible distance, where the clearly visible geometry fades out into the mist(*) dependent on the distance from the camera rather than the height from the ground-plane.

    (* desaturates, looses contrast, softens shadows and blurs)

    The current fog layer does not interact very well with the skybox (atmosphere: horizon) - in fact I don't think it does anything with it: you just see the horizon image through the fog effect.


    However it would look much better if the section of skybox seen below the 'horizon' level was faded out. (Just open a blank model with 100% fog intensity and fly up/down to see what the fog currently does.)