I did not archive version 1.9.6 before updating. Anyone have a link to download it? I am on board to use 2.0 on my work computer, but I have a client meeting coming up later this week using VR and am more comfortable with the lighting that the 1.9.6 version provides.
Let me know if that is possible. Thanks!
It is running fluently, but loading time is about triple than in 1.9.6 (about 15min for a big model), and contrast refreshing when moving in Enscape is terribly slow in low light zones, with unacceptable grainy materials and glowing everywhere.
Processor is I7 7600K. The PC has 32GB of RAM.
I think itâs because the building has no windows (itâs a factory) but that wasnât a problem in 1.9.6. Unrealistic light in 1.9.6 worked fantastic for us.
Some examples:
Quality: Low, high contrast
Quality: Ultra, high contrast
Quality: Ultra, auto contrast
@xsb which version of Enscape are you using exactly?
Have you tried to use medium quality as well with standard settings?
@Jonathan_Knoefel version was 2.0.0.104.
âMediumâ quality got the same lighting but with (even) more noise.
After that, we tried 1.9.6.1072 (preview) and had the same results.
Then, we went back to official 1.9.6 and we got the good old results.
Clemens,
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, work suddenly got extremely busy and I havenât had a chance to follow this up. I canât find a PM with your details on, if you can send one with an email address Iâll send you the Revit model.
For the benefit of the thread the hardware specs are:
HP ZBook Studio G3
Windows 10
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1505M v5 @ 2.80GHz, 2808 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)
32GB ram
SSD
Quadro M1000M with 4GB dedicated video memory, access to 20GB total memory, Driver version 373.06
Iâve set the BIOS to disable the embedded Intel gfx to force Revit to use the Quadro
The laptop is connected to a HP USB-C Dock, which in turn has 2 external monitors attached, so in total the Quado is running 3 screens, 1 @ 1920x1080, 2 @ 1920x1200
The Revit dataset isnât particularly big - the combined A/S/MEP models come to 420MB.
HI @xsb thank you for the feedback, we always want to optimize Enscape. We will check whats feasible.
The 1.9.6 version got the old lighting, therefor it should handle such barely lighted areas different/brighter.
And you should have less noise while moving around, as the light has not to be calculated in the realistic way provided by version 2.0.
@ColinMagner the Quadro M1000M isnât suited to run Enscape fluently in âHighâ & âUltraâ quality as itâs not designed to render in realtime.
The âMediumâ quality in the 2.0 version should be comparable with the âUltraâ quality of the 1.9.6 version.
If you want to invest in a new mobile workstation in the near future, a mobile GTX is designed to render realtime and should be cheaper.
Thanks, but I donât want to invest in a new mobile workstation in the near future to replace one thatâs only about 4 months old.
I deliberately didnât say in my previous post âYes, itâs a laptop with a mobile Quadroâ, although I did type it and then delete it. So, yes, itâs a laptop with a mobile Quadro, but it ran 1.9.6 absolutely fine. I donât remember being warned when purchasing Enscape (after a successful 2 week trial of 1.9.6) that about a week later a new version would be released which would need me to also buy a new laptop.
Sorry if that sounds like itâs worded harshly, but I keep having to reiterate that exactly the same PC ran 1.9.6 absolutely fine. The only difference leading to performance and quality issues is the âupgradeâ from Enscape 1.9.6 to Enscape 2.0.0.
I have mentioned it before and seems to need to be mentioned again. If you like the lighting in 1.9.6 then stay with that version. A new workstation laptop is a large investment, i get it. Did you purchase this laptop specifically for enscape. I am thinking not since you said you have had for 4 months and you just purchased enscape. Enscape and the new version have not made your laptop obsolete. Im sure it works just fine for the software you purchased it for.
We have computers in our office that wont run enscapeâŚthats just a factâŚwe dont use them for that purpose and we use the ones better suited to run it.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but technology advances, software advances. This is why there are new graphics cards coming out every year. im sorry a quadro mobile card is a marketing gimic. Fancy drivers for a slow gpuâŚI know i have 6 of these things in my office. That card and laptop will never be able to run enscape (newer versions) with speed.
Your point wasnât ignored, itâs just not âsustainableâ! The download for 1.9.6 is no longer available (or at least anywhere I can see), and where does it leave us with support in the long term?
You last point illustrates how easy it is to miss points. The whole thread is about the difference from one week to the next with the same hardware. No warning of increased system requirements for the new version, and no settings in the new version that can replicate the previous version.
I definitely understand the frustration. The good thing in all of this is the enscape team does a great job of listening to us, so im sure a solution is in the works. Like others have said maybe they can make a solution that gets the output closer to 1.9.6 with a couple of settings.
We recommend at least a Quadro 2000 and youâre using a mobile Quadro 1000âŚ
And as the Quadro M1000M is already close to 4 years old I only presumed that youâre going to invest in a new workstation soon.
If you donât want to invest, you can lower your settings or use the 1.9.6 version.
=>But we are working on a solution for V2.0
Everyone who seems to need a downgrade gets a link to the 1.9.6 version. I just assumed that you already downgraded to 1.9.6 as youâve posted a comparison pdf between 19.6 and 2.0. You should have received a PM.
Saw v2 running on a GTX1060 yesterday with a v large model and it was silky smooth and v. impressive.
Doesnât change my view on 1.9.6 vs 2.0.0 performance on the same PC, but apart from giving me an appreciation of what some of you are seeing, it is also not what I need! 1.9.6 wasnât silky smooth on my PC, but on Ultra I would guesstimate I got what appears to me to be an acceptable framerate.
@ColinMagner Weâre working on a solution for increasing the performance of Enscape!
Ultra quality computes 2 indirect light bounces, which is really expensive to do in real-time. You can enable it for capturings (screenshots, videos, panoaramas) with a high noise reduction setting (slider on the Capturing tab - this will reduce the graininess on capturings) to get really well lit indoor scenes, but based on your hardware I wouldnât recommend to enable Ultra quality for walkthroughs.
The upcoming hotfix will contain a new feature called âAuto-resolutionâ which will dynamically adjust your rendering resolution based on the rendering performance of your system - this should reduce some performance issues with minimal effect on perceived quality.
I posted at length about what you two are discussing now again, a while back after one of the previous jumps up to 1.9xxxx.
What Made Enscape great was the speed and ease of use, and sharing ability. Itâs already much less of a helpful tool now in all three areas, all at the expense of reaching for details that are hurting your progam. It needed less of the quality improvements and more of the feature additions and further development of the features you had.
The standalone export feature is basically dead now. Itâs unrealistic to expect our clients to have whatâs needed and they donât want unusable things sent to them.
There should have been a point you donât cross, or donât cross too early. Just because the newest card and drivers are made available yesterday, doesnât mean your plugin app should be pushed to that extreme immediately. Itâs unrealistic. Thatâs my opinion.
âthe world of tech will not wait for you to keep up!â âŚIs not a great answer. This is your toy, make it want you want. This is just realworld feedback.
I hope the sketchup users are having a better experience with this plugin getting more useful for them over time. I canât claim that for the Revit version now.
I donât think you hate to be the bearer of bad news at all. Seems you enjoy it. It doesnât matter what you and your office have. It does matter what all the other clients have and or canât have yet. They are the others buying this plugin to keep happy.
You brought up a great truth about some really useless graphic cards sold each year. But I think the larger issue here is about when that guy finally gets a card capably of running this render program and is happy, 2-3 months later a new version will again make him unhappy, and he will still be required to keep bumping his driver every month. This thing is changing that fast yet it needs to be a long term tool. Not just some game that kids buy and then get bored of and go buy another game. Better get used to loyalty to your clients or be ready to lose them.
There are workflow and features of this plugin that could be developed to work better for the versions we had that wouldnât have been demanding new cards for updates to them. It would have been handy to be able to show point clouds, have a path for flythrough videos instead of a single straight line, on and on. These were important things too that maybe wouldnât have demanded new cards to achieve.
BTW, the jump to 1.9 and to 1.9.6 was just as shattering as what Iâve seen lately. I think this plugin already lost some users at that point. This talk of jumping up to 2.0+ being bigâŚoh boy. May we all survive it.
@JScape Thank you for your valuable feedback. Have you already tested the 2.0.1 version which already delivers a higher performance?
We will release version 2.0.2 this week as well which provides an optimized lighting in dark areas.
If I may offer another perspective⌠many users want to see higher quality and would be happy to wait longer for rendered frames (I certainly would) I do not think the answer is to stop pushing the limits but rather to give more control to the users to customize the output to their needs. I think it would be wonderful if the plugin could run in different âmodesâ similar to how vray has simple/advanced/expert, etc. This way the default install would remain simple and ânewbie proofâ while the more advanced users could either choose to push the quality even higher, or throttle it even lower, than what a simple interface can provide for.
