This si antitethical to where the entire architecture industry and BIM want to head towards. What frustrates me is that there really doesn't seem to be a revit - corona pipeline ( and the vray one is severely lacking as well)Ī lot of the issues described above have nothing to do with the core capacities of the engine, they are pipeline choices that keep emphasising obsolete archviz pipelines that require 3ds or C4d to anchor the process. Taking all this into account, there's no way a firm should use a revit-3ds corona pipeline - espeically not with large complex models. Soon the material libraries will merge.ĥ- It has a much much easier learning curve, though that comes with a lack of key controls.Ħ- Its sun and sky system is easy and intuitive, though it could have several more options. This is key as we want to render throughout the entire design.Ģ - The speed is incredible - it is almost real time.ģ- Theres a wealth of easily accessible and easy to place assets.Ĥ- The material integration between revit and enscape, though imperfect is going in the right direction. This means less bugs from revit to 3ds, and, of course, not having to deal with 3ds. There are key issues, like a painful material library, a definite loss of quality, shit view management, little uv controls, to name a few, but I can see why our firm uses this software.ġ- It plugs in very well with revit - I have my revit view and my enscape view open in another window. I've switched jobs and I'm working for an architecture firm that solely uses enscape. When it came out it was a breadth of fresh air compared to VRAY. I know, I know the two pieces of software are not intended to do the same thing, still, I feel like CORONA and VRAY are just approaching archviz in such a stupid way it's hard not to comment.

Enscape vs vray