Posts by Adam.Fairclough

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 the procedure for silent installs is different now


    Use

    Enscape-4.0.0.579.exe -gui=0 -ACCEPTEULA=1


    Follow the instructions to create the type of installation you require:


    This will create a config.xml file in the folder where the EXE is located


    You can then use the

    Enscape-4.0.0.579.exe -gui=0 -ACCEPTEULA=1 -gui=0 -configFile="xml_file.xml" -quiet=1


    Which will do it

    Ok that explains it :) The 2060 is unfortunately the slowest of Nvidia's desktop RTX line-up and is probably also struggling to fit everything into the 6GB of VRAM with ray traced sun shadows, especially with animated wind (which costs a lot of memory in fact).

    As mentioned, in that case I would just recommend to keep the setting off.

    An upgrade to the latest RTX4000 series will eventually give you a nice performance boost though :)


    Is there a performance improvement to be had by changing wind speed to 0? Or is the very presence of the animated assets themselves (regardless of them moving) going to cause an issue?

    In computer graphics the the colour of the object directly defines what % of any colour reflects back to the camera (so you see it) but it also defines how much of it that reflects onto other surfaces.


    If you are using a pure red item, then you are defining 100% of red light to reflect off the surface (which wouldn't happen in real life as you'd never find a material that can do that)


    If you switch the graphics setting down to draft, this disables Enscape's global illumination altogether.


    You could also just a darker colour red (which will mean that less red energy will reflect) and offset this with enscape's post processing settings - increasing the exposure and increasing the saturation.

    Hard to know by simply seeing a screenshot - it looks like something is occluding that light try sharing the model and maybe someone could take a look.

    SketchUp uses a different coordinate system to enscape , so those transformations don’t pass through.


    The way I get around it is to right click on the face and choose “make unique texture” in SketchUp. That will write the texture with the transform to an image and then use standard coordinates.

    Hi, I'm a new Enscape user and I noticed that the output quality of the web standalone is completely different from the exe standalone (the grass is missing, the scene lighting is not nice). Is this normal or am I doing something wrong? Thanks for the reply!

    That's normal - web browsers don't have access to all the tech that enscape uses, so many advanced graphics functions simply don't fucntion and thus things will look different.

    I don't know if there is a hard physical limit for lights, but typically with real time renderers the amount of expense for a light to be computed is directly related to the amount of area that it illuminates . Lots of lights are a direct multiplication of this rule.


    I've seen a few models where there are hundreds of lights and strange things start to happen, enscape may be trying to manage the performance and starts turning some things off or calculating them differently. I'm sure someone from team will be able to give more detail on that.


    Can you share the model for this one?

    I had tried that earlier but I'll show you how it worked here.

    This is with AE turned off and the manual exposure slid to 100. I still have the problem.


    Are there other settings I can look at? Since you got it to work without adjusting anything in the model, it must be a settings issue. (I've only had Enscape for a few months and YouTube only teaches so much)


    it's not the settings so much (except AE) rather the lack of light energy because they lights that are placed are on such low values.

    Turn AE off - in my example I set it to 60


    Then increase the values of the lights - notice how the spheres are bigged in my screenshot - this means they are brighter

    47335-pasted-from-clipboard-png






    Another option to tackle this scene on the whole, which is more efficient is to use some self illumination for the "glowing" things.


    Turn off AE find the materials of the flames


    Change the flame from "generic" to Self Illumination


    change the colour and tint to a nice warm colour and adjust the brightness until the flames look nice.


    You could do the same for the lava

    That will get you something like this


    Now that isn't casting a light onto out seats etc , you could increase the exposure a little more, but there is a good chance this simply isn't pumping enough light and we may introduce noise- self emissive lighting isn't usually enough. So lets place a key light.

    Place a single sphere light , paint it a similar cooler and adjust the brightness until it looks as required



    Now we've achieved a similar effect with a fraction of the number of lights - lights are expensive to use in enscape, so we really want to use as few as possible wherever we can.

    Does your interior lighting primarily rely on global illumination bounces from the exterior or emissive lamps within?

    Increasing the light intensity may not be the solution, as it doesn't affect the quantity of photons, only their brightness. This could potentially exacerbate noise artifacts. My understanding was that this primarily impacts placed direct lights.

    It seems like your interior lights function as emissive surfaces. Consider adding non-physical lights inside to complement this.

    To create a more cohesive look between the interior and exterior, reduce the dynamic range. One way is to boost interior lighting while minimizing sunlight, perhaps to 1 or 2%. You can also adjust the highlights/shadows parameter or use auto contrast to narrow the dynamic range further through the tone mapper.


    Does the exposure override function in VR? The scenes appear underexposed; for instance, in this area, I would anticipate either a darker interior (unlit) or an overexposed exterior. This implies a potential underexposure issue.




    Similar to adapting to a low dynamic display, mindful lighting is crucial to prevent situations like the one depicted in this example of avoiding a dim portrait against a bright background

    [Blocked Image: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/568ebf61a976afb1dc261dce/1498414505911-4CB8W3A7Y1YY0EVCJJAQ/subject+against+a+bright+background.jpg]

    Would connecting the headset to PC with a cable instead of wireless help with the stuttering/speed? I wouldn't mind trading a wireless connection with a wired one if it would improve the performance.

    For sure - you'll need to make sure it is a very high quality cable and that you are connecting it to a high speed USB port.


    If you are doing wired - then back to oculus I think. You can turn down the quality to account for the cable.



    Try running a blank scene with just a cube to rule out whether it is performance from the model or from the connection that is causing the stutter

    The Quest devices are really affordable and generally offer a good experience beyond the teething issue for setup. being wireless by default is pretty cool.


    There are definitely options that do things better - such as head and hand tracking that is harder to occlude - but for general Enscape moving around I don’t really know if that is a huge benefit.