Posts by TowerPower

Whenever you encounter any issues with Enscape or your subscription please reach out to our dedicated support team directly through the Help Center or by using the Feedback button as detailed here.

    I have the second most recent preview version from June 11th and am running the latest nvidia drivers (just updated and the problem still persists). Graphics card is a 1080ti.


    It appears to be a glitch where the darkened outline around objects stays the same size regardless of your distance from them - so the further away you get, the more exagerrated and giant they appear.

    The last few preview versions have started to show some strange artifacts on certain objects at a distance, with a sort of thick darkened band around them, almost like an attempt at ambient occlusion gone wrong. You can see what I mean in the attached images.


    Also, this is totally separate, but for some reason Enscape isn't remembering what folder I saved images in anymore, so everytime I go to export an image, it defaults back to my Pictures folder.

    If you do decide to add incremental rotation funtionality (whether it's 45 degrees, 90 degrees or something else) I'd request that you still retain the current rotation option as well. It's useful when you're flying around the model and don't want to break immersion, which teleportation and this feature would do.


    I feel like sickness is something that quickly fades the more you use VR. Our bodies are very good at adapting to things - when I first used the Rift, certain applications like Google Earth would make me queezy, but nowadays nothing does. I've developed "VR legs".

    I know there have been some threads about this recently but I couldn't find them. Having glossy but faint reflections in Revit doesn't seem to be possible (and possibly sketchup and Rhino as well). As you can see in the attached images, reflectivity is either totally on or totally off when you switch from 0 to 1(direct reflectivity that is - oblique doesn't appear to control anything). Increasing it from 2-100 has no further effect. Glossiness does work at least.



    This is pretty much my experience. However, there are occasions when the Rift is very useful but not usually the case with clients who usually have limited time and patience to experience a nice VR model. But I am still disappointed that the Oculus Go is not more interactive. It's basically a fancy version of the cardboard.

    Santa Cruz will help to bridge that gap when it comes out (likely next year) as it's basically a hybrid version of the Rift and Go, with the same portability (wireless, no computer) as the Go, but positionally tracked (x,y,z) headset and controllers. Where it will still lag significantllly behind the Rift is in computing horsepower however, as it will be reliant on a mobile chipset rather than desktop gpu. I bet that Enscape would run on the lowest (draft) quality settings if optimized correctly though.

    Thanks for info, I have been reading a lots of comparisons but they are all gaming based, what about Enscape, how does the Vive compare to the Rift, which is best for Enscape?

    Again, I feel like the Rift comes out on top here. You can get more nuanced movement out the Rift controllers than the Vive wands owing to their use of a joystick rather than a thumbpad. With the Vive, you're either going or stopped - with the Rift you can gradually accelerate and decelerate, allowing for more nuanced movement.


    And in terms of framerate, it's also possible that'll you'll get more reliable performance out of the Rift (less prone to dropping frames and stuttering, which is the ultimate immersion breaker in VR). This is because Oculus has developed software tricks that fill in missing frames when the gpu can't keep up, known as time warp and space warp. The Vive still doesn't have this full ability. Now ideally for most applications, you'd never be missing frames to begin with (90fps), especially on a 1080ti, but Enscape pushes the limits of what's possible for VR. When you put it on ultra settings, it probably only maintains 15-20 fps (for anything beyond a simple model) and you'll notice black banding around the edges of the screen when you move your head, where it hasn't been able to compute information quickly enough to keep up.


    It has certainly improved over time though, and performance keeps getting better. It's already a marvel that it can run as well as it does when you consider the realtime lighting and reflections being computed.

    Is that with controllers?


    What about the Vive, is it better than Oculus?

    Yup, controllers as well. I feel a bit cheated considering I bought it at full price a little over a year for $800, but ever since last Fall they've dropped the price all the way to $400 for everything, with some sales bringing it even lower. The Vive is currently $500.


    As far as the two headsets go, they're pretty comparable. The Vive is generally considered to have better tracking, while the Rift has better hand controllers (more ergonomic) and is slightly more polished overall, with built in headphones and an adjustable headstrap. Spec wise, they're the same. Personally, I prefer the Rift because it's more comfortable and the controllers are far superior. I have one I use at my desk. We have a VR room in the office with a Vive in it, so I've used both. If you want to get full room scale tracking with the Rift, they reccomend that you buy a third sensor, which is around $50. The Vive does fine with two, but I find they make a low rumbling noise because of the vibrating lasers inside which is a little annoying. Some people have successfully set up room scale Rift setups with only two sensors by mounting them up high in opposite corners of the room. This is an area where the Samsung Odyssey headset has an advantage over both, because it uses inside out tracking (camera based), meaning there are no external sensors to worry about setting up. It also has higher resolution being newer, but there are other drawbacks such as the weight/ergonomics and higher performance requirements, meaning Enscape likely won't run as well, even on a pair of 1080tis, which incidentally is what I have as well. :thumbsup:


    The Vive Pro just came out recently which should be the best of them all, but whether it's worth $1100 is up for debate. Most people say it's not, but if money is no object, go for it (though it still uses the same original Vive wand controllers, so the Rift has it beat there). In terms of value, I'd say the Rift definitely wins among all of them.


    Here's a helpful comparison chart someone did showing the pros and cons of each: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculu…son_of_the_current_pc_vr/

    That could work but quality wise it will be compatable to cardboard so you could also go with that.

    That's an unfair comparison - Oculus Go and google cardboard are in totally different leagues, representing the top and bottom of mobile vr in terms of quality. The lenses and resolution on the Go are actually better than the Rift (although I'm dissapointed with the amount of chromattic aberration I'm seeing).


    That said, the Rift is wayyyy better assuming you have the setup (aka computer) for it. Having positional tracking and the gpu horsepower to do realistic graphics makes a world of difference. Using the Go definitely feels like a step backwards by comparison, though at only $200 I can't really complain for what it is. The main reason I got it was for its portability and to be able to present static 360 panoramas to clients on the go (where it should perform equally or better than the Rift in terms of visual quality).


    Since you already have the setup though Solo, I would definitely get the Rift. It's been selling for as low as $350 recently.

    Intersting. When you factor in the exchange rate back then, I'm guessing the US price was a bit higher at $1k and $2k respecitively, but still 2/3rds of the price it is these days.

    Hi,


    I've faced a shadow problem in my latest images and wanted to share to get some advises from you guys.


    The shadows are casted on the vertical faces like there is a gap between the block's contour and the floor but there is not.

    Nice trees, are those from sketchup warehouse? (since they don't look like revit trees).

    Has Lumion not always been super expensive? It was $3k a license when we joined in version 4, and they've had the same exorbitently high price ever since, but perhaps the first couple versions were cheaper? I think it had a lot to do with not having any competition when it was first released. Nowadays there are a number of real time programs out there, but they've already got such a dominant position in the market, I guess they figure they can afford to keep charging the same amount (the same way Autodesk and others do). If they don't add VR functionality soon though, they're going to get abandonded eventually.

    I have been getting wonderful feedback from our architects using Enscape and a commonly cited addition they would like to see is some subtle improvements to weather. The two main requests have been:


    Different weather types; rain, fog, thunderstorm, overcast; that sort of thing

    An option for clouds to cast shadows on the model

    Clouds actually do cast shadows currently - you can tell if you change there position or density in the atmosphere tab and things suddenly get darker (position is adjusted via Latitude and Longitude sliders) That said, it appears to be a global change, so you don't actually see the profile of their shadow moving across the ground, everything in the model just turns darker at the same time, which I'm guessing won't look realistic in videos, though I've never tried.

    Sorry, I meant turn the video compression quality all the way up to maximum, not the rendering quality (though you'll obviously want to have rendering quality set at maximum as well for the best lighting and reflections, but it shouldn't make a difference in terms of video artifacts)

    Also, if you're exporting videos, make sure you turn the capture quality all the way up to maximum - that will help a lot with artificacts, even with motion blur still enabled (which can be a nice effect to use). It reduces noise and aliasing.

    Plus two!. This seems like a very basic feature that would go a long ways towards increasing usability. Just today I opened a new sketchup file, and upon starting Enscape had all of my revit settings carry over, which of course I had to modify, and now when I go back I'm going to have to undo them. I realize it's possible to save settings, which I do, but it's easy to forget, and it would be way easier if Enscape did this automattically with every file. You could still have the option to save additional settings the way you do now if you'd like to have multiple ones you switch between for the same project, or if you'd like to transfer them from one project to another, but the basic savability should be there by default.