Merci pour votre analyse éclairée, mais je n’apprécie pas l’interface de Enscape pour Archicad…
I have been working with Enscape for quick visualization since 2018. With various CAD programs including 3D programs for over 30 years.
Now I have taken my time to work intensively with D5 Render. I’m getting the same positive surprise when I started with Enscape. Since then I have been learning more and more about the positive advantages of the D5 Render.
It is different from Enscape. You have to go another way to achieve the same goal. Therefore the procedure and drawing with D5 and sketchup is a little different.
Ok, it takes a little longer for video and render but not enough to boil a cup of coffee.Ok and the help desk should be improved.
But, the D5 images show a naturalness, realism and depth. An important factor, no more editing in Photoshop.
We are more and more presenting the projects as video. Render images are given very cautiously.
The future is cell phone video. Sound and film are the best emotional sales arguments.
VR headsets are impractical instruments and only when like sun glasses are available for them.
I’m looking forward to 1.8 and in the future
I had to wait patiently in these 2 years until Enscape reached today’s level. Let’s wait 2 years too and then D5 Render will reach a super level.
For me, the guys from D5Render do a great job.
I agree with you in almost everything.
I have always repeated that D5 has great future potential. And I keep my fingers crossed that the developers will fill it. I’m just saying that Enscape is a more effective tool for everyday work today. Measured by the total time / result ratio. Today. We’ll see what happens next.
The speed of development of the D5 over the last year is truly astounding. But after a bad experience with Twinmotion, I never want to sacrifice my time again for something with many childish mistakes in the hope that the developers will finish it quickly. More and more libraries of new 3D objects don’t impress me if the basic things still don’t work properly.
Enscape produces nice images easily, D5 is more realistic. What is better depends on the need and situation. I am constantly monitoring the results of the work of other D5 users, but during that time I have seen very few good realistic visualisations. This means that achieving the desired quality is not easy in D5.
VR technology has not advanced much in the last year. Probably not the right time yet. I agree that as a presentation tool for clients it is not always as great as I previously thought. But it is very useful for me as a tool in the creative process. For an architect, it is a dream come true and a very welcome opportunity.
I totally agree. Library is less important then the software possibilities and engine performance. Lets hope they keep focussing on that. Lumion for example focuses to much on library. They are stuck on their engine.
I totally agree with your point of view that the naturalness, realism and depth about D5, before I started using D5 I used to adore the visuals done with Vray, corona, now I can a lot of those visuals look no where near as photoelectric as D5