The artificial lighting in our models cannot be relied on. It’s producing a wierd scattered light effect. Thoughts?
The indirect lighting by emissive surfaces can cause that if the emitting light sources are relaively small and powerful. It can also happen with strong illuminates surfaces that are very far away.
Two solutions: increase the light source size if emissive or add direct lighting to the ground (or make the images at daylight which also increase the amount of light floating around).
We will improve on that too, but it won’t be entirely solved very soon.
Hi Thomas, during my tests I run in situation like this and I ask me could it be possible to a get a kind of special fill light based on AO?
Here a result of a early night interior where the daylight can’t be increased. Render quality and noise reduction set to level ultra. It could be nice if Enscape could allow to switch to advanced users control to handle this difficult situations and to set detailed parameters for GI and final pass noise.
Thank you for the hint to the direct light source. I tested to add non emitter light sources and very careful used it helps a little. At my test render is an area light from top and down added, placed far away from the scene, so that no strange reflections are added. Without this lights the ceiling is nearly black. (second image)
An other effect is that screen space calculation ignores emitters outside the camera view angle. Could it be possible to take lights and emitters outside the view into account for the lighting calculation?
Here the additional direct light can be seen at the reflection, but direct light and emitters seems to be cuted from the lighting calculation. Or will it be a simple rule that this kind of situations can’t be solved by screen space calculation and best avoid night scenes?
Let’s avoid the technical terms here - first, most of the forum readers don’t know about ScreenSpace and second, it’s not exactly how Enscape works.
Enscape includes off-screen components for reflections and indirect light, however they are limited in complexity. If you want to be sure that your objects are visible in your reflections, make sure that they are not too detailed (polygon wise). It’s a bonus for their visibility priority if they are emissive.
Hope that helps.
So, I want to come back to the wish of a knowledge base text where is explained, what can be expected and what not and how to handle some special cases. I looked around at the web for explanations for some effects of Enscape. Nice to hear it’s more than screen space calculation.
Thank you for the hint for the emitter polygon count. It help a little. Attached two images - one with 83% reduced polygon count for the emitters. Now it are all together approx. 3000 polygons. Is it still a high count?
I hope the GI and noise quality can be enhanced. Longer render times would be no problem. Maybe a VR vs. render output switch could be added.
