[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

1 hour ago, mjm said:

I got the M1 Max 32GB MBP. So sad I did NOT get the 64GB.

 

Tim Apple (in his best Don Draper voice): That's what the M2 is for!

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

1 hour ago, mjm said:

CONCUR

 

What was the VW task in that screenshot?

 

BTW there are som other column options in Activity Monitor that might be useful:

 

 

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

10 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

I'm not disputing that more memory is better - and sure, given the option buying a new mac today I'd take 32 over 16.

 

However - I believe there is a problem with the way VW deals with memory, that has not been entirely fixed in 2023, which means that it just keeps wanting more and more, until everything stops working. Perhaps only in certain situations, which not all users will experience.

 

That's based on my own experience, and what I've seen other users noting. In addition to @zeno describing it happening on a 64GB machine, for example here is @Tom W. describing having to restart VW2023 due to running out of memory on an intel machine with 48GB (if his signature is correct).

 

Again, I'm not disputing that 32 will generally be better than 16 - but I'm not sure it would solve this particular problem, other than that it would perhaps not occur until a little further into a session.

 

I think I got threads mixed up because there's a Venn diagram of the same handful of people complaining about the same handful of things in a handful of slightly differently places. Just spend your life savings on a Mac, and everything will work great.

 

It's like we're all sitting around the monolith at The Dawn of Mac:

 

 

(And we know what happened to HAL's memory.)

 

Moving on... 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

4 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

I've never complained about running out of memory.

 

Well, that's a lie:

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

Just now, line-weight said:

This is why I wonder how much difference having 32GB rather than 16GB would make - because if VW is happy to shovel in 80GB of stuff on a 16GB machine then surely it would do the same on a 32GB one.

 

Doubling the low end from 16 to 32 would make a big difference.

 

Adding 16 to the high end would not be noticeable for most users, myself included.

 

I feel like a broken record but:

• Look at the Intel MBP in my signature: 32 + 8 (40 total; not 32)
  • So 32 is really more like 24 + 8 if we're comparing ARM's to Intels
• I've never run out of memory with 128gb, and I'm usually sitting somewhere between 25 and 50% (32 to 64gb)

If 32gb shared memory is in one's budget, it's a no-brainer for 2023 and beyond.

 

If a power user is concerned about running out of memory, and has the budget, I can vouch for the Studio not disappointing. I complain a lot. I've never complained about running out of memory.

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

Just now, Christiaan said:

Not sure. I haven't used Apple Silicon yet. I also haven't actually been working with SLVPs that much recently either.

 

That's fair but I think you had some good news about VW 2023 memory management vs VW 2022.

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

I reported on some of my memory-hogging experiments here.

 

My impression is that having more RAM might not really help (it simply would take a bit longer for it to fill up and everything collapse). I think that was based on some comments from other users, for example this one here by @zeno describing memory on a (I think) 64GB machine getting eaten up, and going off up to 140 or 190GB.

 

A lot of contextual relativity to unpack here... 

 

First of all, I've never run out of memory with 128gb, so yes, more memory helps. If @Christiaanor @zenowould like to share one of their mega drawing sets with hundreds of section viewports, I'd be happy to test if I could peg this machine. It's defeatist to say more memory won't help but there is a diminishing ROI at some threshold for every user.

 

BTW their feedback directly helped the memory management improvements in VW 2023.

 

That said, a lot of the initial feedback was regarding VW 2021 and 2022. Keep in mind, the M1 Mini was released over two years ago at the end of 2020 (shortly after VW 2021 was released). And VW 2021 ran in Rosetta 2, so VW 2022 was the first version that ran natively on ARM, so of course it wasn't as optimized as it is now (or will continue to be in the future). Whenever Apple change architecture, we all go all along for the ride (growing pains).

 

140 to 190gb on a 64gb machine? Those are some Activity Monitor funny numbers... 

 

If I could summarize everything:

• VW 2023 is more efficient with shared memory than VW 2022
• M2 Mac Mini offers double the shared memory (from 16gb to 32gb) of the M1 Mac Mini
• M2 single core is ~20% faster
  • M2 Pro is the fastest single core Mac right now
• M2 multicore is ~20% faster (has 20% more cores)
  • M2 Pro is the 4th fastest multicore Mac right now ***
• M2 graphics are ~30% improved

In other words, the user experience of running VW 2023 on a maxed out M2 Mini should be noticably better than running VW 2021 or 2022 on a maxed out M2 Mini.

 

*** For the heavy RW users, these are the Cinebench scores:

• 75,671  AMD Threadripper 3990X
• 41,012  Intel i9 13900K
• 21,740  Apple M1 Ultra
• (M2 Pro is presumably 2/3 the M1 Ultra)

So, it seems Apple have painted themselves into another corner with ARM.

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

What really grates my gears is that Apple doesn’t offer a 48gb or 64gb shared memory upgrade option for the M2 Mini because they want to force users into a Studio or MBP.

 

For context, the 5-year old Intel Mini offered up to 64gb RAM + 1.5gb VRAM (65.5gb total) and was eGPU compatible. But, you know, then they’d sell a lot less Studios and MBP’s… 

 

I’ll use a Mac as my daily driver until the bitter end but post-Jobs Apple is pure greed and subscription “services.”

 

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

Interested to know where you see this producing real-world use benefits. For example my comparison between 2021 and 2023 so far has shown:

- Updating section viewports in 2023 takes about 60-70% of the time it does in 2021. That's a significant difference, although still a long way from the "real-time update" that everyone would really like.

Not leaking / holding onto as much memory.

 

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

Renderworks renders I see a marginal but measureable improvement

Not aware of any RAM improvements here in VW (RW is typically a CPU bottleneck and barely touches the GPU / VRAM).

 

 

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

Viewing heavy (ie a lot of complex viewports) sheet layers no improvement

 

I wish more RAM or VRAM would solve this problem. Sadly, this has never been a hardware bottleneck. They’re interested in finding a solution though.

 

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

Memory-hogging (ie filling up RAM and then not releasing it after completing processes) no improvement.

 

@Christiaan you wanna take this one?

 

 

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

What I can't test myself is whether things would be different if I had more RAM available.

 

 

I can summarize my experience. Once I hit a certain threshold, memory was no longer the bottleneck. Today on M2, that would be about 32gb (shared). At the moment, on M1 Ultra 128gb, I have more memory than I’ve ever needed. It’s never been pegged (aside from UE/TM). I’m regularly hovering in the 25-50% range with a few exceptions, so that would be 32-64gb (shared). That’s a roundabout way of saying the sweet spot for shared memory on ARM is 32-64gb (for me). Less than 32gb (shared), and I’d be hating life. More than 64gb (shared), there’s not much of a return. Over 96gb (shared), I don’t even notice it.

 

Btw I think Apple improved thermal cooling in the M2 Mini, right? That would be another benefit compared to the M1.

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

I'm not going to pretend to know how 90% of VW users use VW. Nor am I going to define or label who is or isn't a power user. However, as someone who's been using a Mac since at least 1987 (Mac SE) with the exception of 1999–2003, here's what I objectively know from experience, and professionally recommended to my friends and colleagues here in the forum:

• Single core performance - From top to bottom, this is a level playing field, so it's not even a consideration. The cheapest M2 machine is faster than the most expensive M1 machine (and the $50,000 Intel Mac Pro because it's a stupid Xeon instead of a 13900) and always will be. This will not be the bottleneck.
• Multicore performance - Beyond 12 cores will mostly be utilized by Renderworks (the Cinema engine will use every core you throw at it). However, most everything else in VW on either a design or sheet layer won't really benefit from more than 12 cores. This is another no-brainer for most users; don't waste your money here. This will not be the bottleneck.
• GPU - GPU's are the new CPU's. However, in the context of the Mac Mini, it's not a factor. You'll get what you'll get, and you'll like it. This will not be the bottleneck.
• Shared Memory (RAM + VRAM) - Let's start with the painful truth: even though a Mini is a desktop, it cannot be upgraded. Therefore, you want to get more than you think you'll need a few years from now. Give yourself some headroom for having an Adobe app open at the same time as VW. If you're backing into a budget, this is the upgrade choice in 2023 that will determine everything else. This could be the bottleneck, so the recommendation is 32gb.
• Storage - Desktops, laptops, iPads, iPhones... this is where Apple really stick it to their customers, it also cannot be upgraded, and we're always filling it up. Cloud storage and external hard drives can certainly help with savings here.
• Thermals - Fortunately, this is no longer the bottleneck in 2023 but it's worth mentioning after everything we suffered through during Sir Jony Ive's thin and light reign. There's a very good reason the new MacBook Pro's are thiccer than a sticker.
• As computers get bigger and badder hardware, developers' apps become more resource hungry. Everything is relative.
• Developers are still optimizing for ARM. When I hop on my 2019 and even 2014 MBP, they just feel like rock solid machines. They were the most refined iterations of their generations (RIP Nvidia GPU's and drivers).
• We don't draw in a vacuum. We have other apps open. Some of them, like the free Twinmotion with an Easy-Bake Oven interface that a toddler could master, require a minimum of 38gb combined memory (76gb is recommended)
• Some of those that cut corners are the same that complain loudest... about the way things "should be"
• "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." See you all when the M3 is announced... 

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

I just priced out the cheapest 14" MacBook Pro that I could configure with >32gb shared memory, and I was SHOCKED at how overpriced it is.

 

I completely understand the choice to pay $2500 for a Mac Mini vs $3500 for a MBP. That pricing is CRIMINAL.

 

I honestly thought there were some mid grade options between $2500 and $3500 but, if I'm not mistaken, they're all capped at 32gb shared memory, so they force you into paying more for that "trim" option. Elon must have given Tim some pointers on how to bleed customers when he visited the spaceship.

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

Sure. But they don't necessarily "do the math" for what's best for VW-focussed use. For example VW seems quite memory hungry but often wastes processing power. One of the issues with the first M1 mac minis was the maximum of 16gb RAM.

 

VW 2023 is significantly more optimized for ARM and RAM than 2021 and 2022, so that helps. Other apps? It really depends, and they're sharing the same resources as VW.

 

The new M2 Mini offers double the RAM upgrade, so in that regard, the maxed out M2 Mini is significantly better than the maxed out M1 Mini. So that's kind of a double win for memory in 2023. BTW we're on SP3 now, so at least VW is stable (can't speak for Ventura).

 

VW 2023 will also take full advantage of the GPU improvements in Shaded mode.

 

MacBook Pro's are currently filling in the midrange configurations.

 

BTW here are the apps on my machine that are still running on Rosetta 2:

 

 

[Mac Silicon OS and VW]

2 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

A Mini with 32 (or even 16) GB is probably sufficient for 90% of the Vectorworks users. The people you see on this board (you @line-weight, @Christiaan, @Mark Aceto, @jeff prince, etc.) are high end power users and are going to want more power.

 

Sure but I would never recommend a low end Mac to a colleague for use in a production environment. There are lots of options in the midrange that are more suitable for delivering work to our clients.

 

EDIT: I can't strikethrough the comment above but $2,500 is not a low end machine. The maxed out M2 Mini appears to be the midrange model in the first half of 2023.

 

Also, for whoever is reading this, 16gb on M-series is absolutely not suitable. First of all, it's SHARED memory, so that's combined RAM and VRAM (GPU). In other words, more like 12gb RAM + 4gb VRAM. Second, it's apples and oranges. 16gb RAM + 4gb RAM on an Intel Mac a few years ago, was a minimum (and also 20gb total).

 

For anyone in this forum, 32 is the new 16gb in 2023.

 

Here's what I'm using right now without VW even open (Safari is 1 window with 13 tabs):

 

 

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

Nah, I'll bet 🌮🌮🌮 that Gurman is all kinds of wrong about the new Mac Pro (we're gonna see some version of a larger "Extreme" die with more guts):

 

https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro-14-and-16/

 

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

12 hours ago, Christiaan said:

I sure would love to see what the Mac Pro has to offer too.

 

I don't trust Gurman's prognostications anymore but let's assume he's correct about them canceling the Jade C-Die (the mythical "Extreme" quad layout)...

 

For context, I've never heard the fan in my Studio. So if the M2 MacGurman Pro and the M2 Studio are both ARMed with M2 Ultra chips with equal RAM, GPU... Why would anyone buy the MacGurman Pro? Well, Apple could supply more power to the Ultra SOC in the MacGurman Pro, and then substantially cool it to avoid thermal throttling. More watts, more power, more cooling.

 

BTW in the M2 MBP presentation, I noticed what appear to be 4x 24gb memory sticks around the outside of the die, so maybe they could increase the shared memory from 256gb (and possibly a mid-tier option):

 

 

 

A quick Google search, seems to verify that:

 

First M2 Pro Die Shot Analysis Reveals Apple’s Latest SoC Uses Older RAM Standard, No Locked GPU Cores, More

 

Anyway, without hardware accelerated ray tracing in the Mac Pro, that thing is dead in the water.

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

3 hours ago, Mark Aceto said:

so that's 136 apples - 96 oranges... 

 

 

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

2 hours ago, Christiaan said:

That's where my head's at. Wait until 31 March to see what happens. I sure would love to see what the Mac Pro has to offer too.

 

Same. I need to see all the cards on the table to make an informed decision. That's part of the reason I suspect Apple has been hedging their bets with the Mac Pro. As soon as we see what direction they take, it will be relatively easy to predict the roadmap... roughly 25% improvements year over year. But I'm sick of looking into my crystal ball, and making uneducated guesses about wild cards.

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

43 minutes ago, Christiaan said:

 

Actually I've been thinking the same thing, even if it means having to wait beyond the 31 March and miss this 25% discount. I've also been thinking about giving the Studio Display a miss too, at least this first version of it. 

 

Radeon Pro Vega 48 8 GB in our iMacs. 

 

OK, so not the 5700XT which was a monster. That's stills 128 + 8 = 136gb memory though, so that's 136 apples - 96 oranges... 

 

My POV of a M2 MBP migration would be:

• Single core - mind bogglingly fast
• Multi core - noticeable improvement
• Memory / Graphics - honestly hard to say (apples and oranges), so within an order of magnitude of what you currently have

Therefore, it comes down to:

• FOMO - what will the next Studio offer? HDM1 2.1 and other improvements we saw in the M2 MBP? Who knows with Tim Apple recycling every component as long as he can bleed us dry?
• Future proof / long term value - being that nothing is user serviceable / upgradeable like your iMacs (even in a Studio), you kinda have to "skate to where the puck is going to be"
  • Comparing laptops to laptops, the M2 MBP seems solid for at least 3 years
  • Comparing laptops to desktops, might wanna wait for the M2 Studio

Speaking from experience, I decided to go with the M1 Studio because for an extra $1,000 I got double the multicore performance of the next closest thing, M1 MBP. Today, the M2 MBP is about 2/3 instead of 1/2. But it'll be 1/2 again when the M2 Studio is released.

 

Couple other considerations for context:

• Section SLVP mostly render single core, so not sure how much the extra cores will help
  • More memory should help a lot though
• I keep hoping for hardware accelerated ray tracing, so TM / UE will finally be fully functional on a Mac (that's not an Intel Mac Pro) but we know that the MBP won't have that until the next gen (M3?) at the earliest
  • Who knows with the Mac Pro?
    • All I want to do is through a 13900 and 4080 in a Mac Pro case, so I can run macOS with the best hardware but hell will freeze over before we can have the best of both worlds

If you're working with a team, maybe start upgrading the MBP's? At least for now, it seems like Apple's upgrade path for iMac / Pro is the Studio lineup, so maybe wait as long as you can for the M2 Studio (knowing there could be supply chain issues that might delay that until late this year or worse).

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

4 hours ago, Christiaan said:

Do you use a lot of sheet layer section viewports Mark?

More than most entertainment users but fewer than you.

 

Coming from an iMac (with what GPU?), you might wanna wait for the M2 Studio bump.

 

I would try to talk you out of a Studio Display but I doubt I would succeed. That said, when monitoring (ahem) external display performance, it seems like a 4K display uses 1–2gb VRAM just by being plugged in and turned on, so that shouldn’t be a factor at all with a M2 MBP with 96gb shared memory. You’ll also be using a TB4 connection for a 5K display, so it (or any other monitor with power delivery) will act as “one cable to rule them all” (power, signal, data) which is some kind of wonderful (compared to the dark ages of Dongletown).

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:48 PM, E|FA said:

Thanks.  I went through and put together a spreadsheet of currently available models that potentially make sense for my use case.  I didn't include the 16" MacBook because of $$$.    If I understand correctly, the base model M2 Mini with RAM & HD upgrades should be relatively safe?  It maxes out at 24GB RAM, but I don't consider my projects to be "complex" (single family residences).  It looks like the macBook Air has similar performance (2 fewer GPUs), so for $600 I would be able to use it while out of the office, but most of the time it would be docked.  I also doubt I could do meaningful VW work on a 13" screen.  

 

If I assume it's  desktop only use, there's a $500 add to get the M2 Pro Mini, or $800 add to get the M1 Max Studio.  Do you think I'll notice a significant improvement with these upgrades?

 

My current iMac can get sluggish when modifying multi-component Walls, but seems to do pretty well with Flyover in orthogonal Shaded views.

 

  

14” MacBook Pro

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

That’s also maybe the salient point: after a certain threshold, the only noticeable ROI is rendering. So, if you’re not concerned with rendering bottlenecks… 

 

Single core performance is nearly identical with all M1’s and all M2’s respectively, so there’s no return there. The cheapest is same speed as most expensive (M1 vs M1 Ultra).

 

ROI for more than 12 cores (with Mac silicon) is almost exclusively limited to RW.

 

The old rule of thumb with Macs was, “Buy the most expensive CPU within your budget” (because that was the bottleneck). The 2023 version is, “Buy as much shared memory as you can afford.” And, like trim packages with new cars, that choice will force you into one CPU package or another.

[New M2 MacBook Pros]

TL;DR 64gb is the new 32gb
 

I can safely say as someone who’s been using a maxed out M1 Ultra with 128gb shared memory for the past 7 months, I could get by with 96gb 96% of the time. I have headroom. I’ve never pegged the RAM or GPU outside of UE/TM (which will always peg any GPU).

 

However, if you look at the specs for Twinmotion, they recommend 64gb RAM minimum; 128 for more powerful stuff (that Mac’s can’t do anyway because they lack the GPU hardwares necessary). Keep in mind, those specs are not for shared memory.

 

So, if you draw / design / model / render in a vacuum, using only VW, with all other apps, browser tabs, PDF’s closed… then, yeah, you could go with lower specs. But everyone in this forum has a different use case, workflows, needs… 

 

And there are still apps like UE and TM that run on Rosetta 2 because they’re not ARM-native yet. Or maybe you used Parallels, and want to set up a virtual machine with as much RAM/VRAM as possible… 

 

VW has led the way with optimizing for ARM but other apps… they’re all over the place.

Based oj my experience:

• 32gb is minimum
• 48gb is OK
• 64gb is good
• (Here’s the sweet spot)
• 96gb is great
• 128gb is best (and you know who you are if you need it; FQRW, TM, UE)

Personally / professionally, I’m waiting to see what happens later this year but I’m leaning toward replacing the Studio with a M2 MBP (as andaily driver and for taking onsite) and a Windows desktop (13900 + 4080 for heavy lifting and Windows-only apps). The messed up thing is that Windows desktop (from Puget) costs the same as my Studio and would absolutely destroy it in both CPU and GPU rendering.

[ConnectCAD toolset icons for your custom workspace]

So you click OK, ignore the errors, save the custom workspace, and you're still not seeing them? And you're in the new custom workspace (not one of the stock workspaces)? Do you have any more info, screenshots, screen recording?

[Number Pad / Macro Pad / Stream Deck / Loupedeck]

22 minutes ago, trevorgooch said:

My Stream Deck XL arrived as I was leaving town for the last show, and I'm in the busy, all-too-brief in between time before the next show, filled with things I have neglected whilst on the road (bills, relationships, etc). 

 

I'm ashamed (and entertained) to share that it currently shows me the current CPU load in the top left button, and that's all.

 

Updates when I have a minuted to dive in!  @Mark Aceto, let me know if there is anything that you're curious to have play tested, and I may move that up the list...

 

If you really wanna have some fun, search Stream Deck on Etsy (lots of DIY risers, mounts, and doodads):

 

https://www.etsy.com/search?q=streamdeck

[Total weight of truss systems - Reports]

9 hours ago, Cristiano Alves said:

Sorry I'm very very new on paperwork on vectorworks.

 

A time-saving workflow for the LED screen tool (and many other plugins): let's say you frequently use Roe CB5 tiles, so you're referencing the cut sheet spec's, and entering the data in the OIP. Save that plugin object to your user library as a red symbol. Then, on future projects, you just drag that red symbol from the Resource Manager to the design layer, and edit the array size as necessary (vs reinventing the wheel every time). That's possible because you can enter the weight, watts, etc for each individual tile.

 

Speaking of watts, the Landru tool calcs the total watts (from memory the stock tool does not).

 

Also, best in class built-in text display... 

 

BTW both developers are very responsive (or so I've heard 😜).