So things are starting to move after the Chaos - Enscape merger and the first step towards a smooth workflow from model to realtime visualisation to high quality visualisation has been taken by making Enscape compatible with V-Ray.
Seeing how GS recently hitched their wagon behind Enscape - is there work being done to make sure AC users can benefit from the full potential of Enscape? Is there work being done to get V-Ray for AC or are AC users doomed to a second class future?
What are the issues that you have exactly?
I continue to do work with Enscape to produce content on how Enscape works with Archicad and there is content on the Enscape website.
Also if there are specific needs you have I can talk to the team at Enscape and they could potentially assist.
My point is that the potential of Enscape has increased as it now can bridge the gap between the model and high quality visualisations in V-Ray. The issue is that V-Ray doesn't run on AC leaving users unable to use the full potential of Enscape. For someone who uses both Enscape and V-Ray this becomes a real concern when evaluating CAD/BIM applications and as development continue it's weight is likely to increase. On the other side - AC users are likely to become less of concern in development decisions made by Chaos.
I'm biased as I'm interested in using both Enscape and V-Ray. There are other solutions available but as GS promotes Enscape as way to empower our design workflow it is not unreasonable be specific.
Do you think then that this request/post has more relevance on an Enscape/Chaos request page then? It is that software company that invests in making the connections from its software to other packages. Graphisoft isn't responsible for that development or to make it happen.
Not really. The specificity of the post comes from the fact that GS actively promotes Enscape as a way to empower an AC based design workflow. Is it then unreasonable to ask if GS does anything to safeguard the interest of users who chooses AC partly due to this or users entering the two-year deal? A deal that, although it has short term benefits for users, primarily have long term benefits for GS through locking-in effects. Shouldn't GS hold any responsibility for users being able to benefit from any future gain in potential? Is it really up to AC users to follow the vagaries of GS - running around convincing first Epic, now Chaos, and then some other company to come and play with AC?
And that is the general gist of the post. The development in visualisation outpaces AC - what is being done to make sure that users have access to cutting edge workflows?
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. 🙂
I went down the Enscape route and paid for it many years ago. I saw the Twinmotion deal and knew it was a plan from Epic to get users addicted to it and then begin charging for it! It is a marketing technique. The deal that Graphisoft is promoting is an Enscape promotion. Not a Graphisoft one. The goal of Enscape is to reduce the cost of entry for Archicad users that are used to Twinmotion and are interested in finding an alternative and purchasing their software. That is all it is nothing more.
In response to your final paragraph, I 100% agree that visualisation is moving faster than AC can develop. Sadly you can't expect Graphisoft to pay other software vendors to make their software capable of working with Archicad. The visualisation software vendors are going to do what they can do to increase their marketshare, if that means developing workflows for Archicad connectivity then they will invest, otherwise if they don't think the market is what they are after they won't invest.
Yes but I think it is just a question of perspective. As an outside observer I don't have any details of the GS - Chaos relationship. It might very well be as simple as you describe it, i.e. Enscape trying to reach AC users and then I agree with your points - it would be strange to hold GS accountable for another company's decision to offer solutions to AC users.
But I have a hard time seeing this be the case. There is nothing from Enscape about the promotion and at the same time GS is pushing Enscape as a natural enhancement of the AC workflow and using the promotion as value added to GS Forward. So for me this is clearly something that benefits GS and to such a degree that it is reasonable to ask if they are happy just to get what they can and use it to promote AC or if they actually have a long term plan/strategy with this which will safeguard the interest of current AC users.
This is not about expecting GS to pay for external development - it is generally about GS making sure that the cost of AC compatibility is as low as possible and specifically about GS using their leverage in the interest of it's users. Why should GS promote Enscape without pressuring Chaos to make the future potential available to AC users?
Let’s say I comment when I have an understanding of what is going on. I confirm I don’t know the full arrangement between the two companies but I did conversations before the announcement with Enscape. I also know why particular actions are being taken by Enscape regarding marketing and I agree with their approach.
The important thing to note is I comment on things I know about, but value my relationships with any organisation that I have an in confidence conversation with to never over step the line and divulge information when I am not in the position to do so.
Of course. The aim of the post was to highlight the perspective of a AC user - not to imply anything about your information or use it to deduce anything further.