Jump to content

Altivec

Member
  • Content Count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Altivec

  1. Thanks Matt. I thought the same thing over a year and half ago. Then someone said wait until Oct 2015. Then I was told to wait to Jan 2106, Then March of 2016, For sure at WWDC, Then Oct Mac Event, For sure no later than the end of November. Now we're talking March 2017. At that time it will be getting close to almost 4 years since the current MacPro was last updated. Intel has updated the Xeon E5, 2 times in that span, maybe it will even be 3 times by then. Graphics cards have been updated several times. Their is absolutely no excuse for Apple not to update the MacPro other than they are not interested As much as I heart wants to hang on, my brain is telling me "boy are you dumb". Its really time for me to cut the cord. Anyone that is not pushing the limits of Vectorworks will be fine on a Mac but if you are serious about doing renderings or heavy duty modeling, the future does not look bright in Mac land. I'm sure there will be a new MacPro out one day but I think that will be the last one. I've seen so many Pro's leave due to Apple's neglect that I can only imagine the sales of these new MacPro's will be minimal at best. The less they sell, the less chance of another one down the road. iMacs should be around for a while so if that is working for you now, there is not too much to worry about.
  2. I just wanted to update what I said in this thread just in case anyone is making purchasing decisions based on it. The rumour site that mentioned MacPro updates no later than the end of November has now recanted. They've now changed it to March which tells me, they have no idea whats going on. http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/new-mac-pro-release-date-rumours-uk-mac-pro-2016-tech-specs-new-features-march-3536364/ I've been following this perpetually moving upgrade target for over a year and half now and I think I'm at my limit with Apple. Although I prefer their OS by far, I need a new machine and I can't fathom paying 10K for a 3 year old 12 core MacPro with outdated GPU when for the same money I can get a 36core HP or Dell with a GTX 1080 graphics card. The difference in specs is just too great to ignore. I guess I'll see if there will be any black Friday deals on workstations. After 30+ years on the Mac, I may be a new PC user by next week. We'll see how it goes.
  3. Is the line weight scale of every viewport on your sheet the same? This setting is located in "Advanced Properties" (Button found at the bottom of the OIP when each viewport is selected)
  4. Glad to hear its not just me. I bought an Enterprise based on all the rave reviews I've heard about this thing and because of Jim's comment that they are working on building full Enterprise support . Although it seems to work in the demo and other software that I don't care about, I have NEVER been able to get it to work properly in VW. I just use it as paper weight on my desk as i wait for that day.
  5. So from what I am gathering here texture wise. The only important part about making an image efficient is to worry about its actual dimensions and that's it. Compressing an image will only reduces the quality and has no actual benefit. To give an extreme example a 10MB tiff that is 128 x 128 pixels would be more efficient then a 100 kb jpg that is 512 x 512 pixels. Man, I've been doing my textures wrong for years. This is awesome stuff and exactly what I want to learn here. Thanks to everyone that is participating. Please keep it coming.
  6. If its a 3d polygon you want to use the push/pull tool or shell solids tool from the 3D modelling tools palette
  7. Sorry Zoomer, I think you are misunderstanding my question. I am not asking if PNG is good format nor am I complaining that VW converts them to PNG. My questions are solely to find out if there are any benefits to pre-processing images before bringing them into VW. and if so, what is the ideal thing we should do. Should I be compressing my images in Jpg? Should I be optimizing a minimal palette in PNG? Should I be importing an uncompressed Tiff? or VW will treat all formats the same and I would end up with the same efficiency no matter what pre processing I did. Now you lost me. So you are saying that if I want high quality textures, I need to import them as Tiff. In which VW will then convert them to compressed PNG thus losing its high quality format. But then when rendering VW will convert the PNG back to Tiff without any loss of quality. I don't believe thats possible. Once the file is compressed, you can't go back without losing some quality. I can understand that VW will create a better PNG if I import a tiff over a jpg and that is where my question comes in. If there is no improvement in texture efficiency whether I import a compressed jpg or a pristine uncompressed Tiff, then I've been doing it wrong. Instead of using compressed jpg which is give me no benefit, I should be using tiff and getting better quality with no efficiency penalty. I don't think Jim was implying meshes are devastatingly bad. If your models are not that complex, you probably won't notice a difference. You should also keep edit-ability over converting objects to generic solids if that is the case. But this topic is on efficiency. My models are huge, 2GB+ and I have thousands and thousands of objects, with several hundred textures. When you add up all the tiny bits of efficiency in each object and each texture, it makes a big difference in the end.
  8. Some excellent information here. Thanks Jim... But with answers comes more questions, lol Yes. I realize it converts our images to PNG but I think what I'm after is, what exactly is VW doing to our images? For example. Lets say I have a 1MB jpg image. What I usually do is bring it into an image editor and compress it down to lets say a 100 kb jpg (Dimensions are the same, just highly compressed). Since VW is converting it to PNG. Is there any benefit to compressing the file size to a 100kb or is the resulting PNG file going to have the same the file size and efficiency whether I imported the original 1mb file or the 100kb file. In other words, Did I just waste my time and made my image look worse(artifacts) by compressing it with absolutely no benefit or did reducing the file size by 10X improve this textures efficiency? Same goes with PNG. In an image editor, I have the ability to adjust many settings including limited custom pallets, 8 bit, 24 bit, resampling options. If I spend the time using these settings to get the file size down and I import the image as a PNG. does VW keep my carefully crafted PNG settings or does it also convert my PNG to what ever it likes. I agree completely. I hate 3D polys and try to avoid it if at all possible. I was just wondering if I should be. Its great to hear that they are inefficient so I can continue avoiding them That's great to know. This helps out a lot. So when making my symbols I will have to make two of them. One that is the original editable one and one that's a generic solid to use in my models. This is the exact stuff I want to learn in this thread. Wasn't expecting that answer. Wow. So Sub-D are actually meshes and not procedural. I was thinking the opposite because they look so smooth when rendered. Yah, if these are meshes and they are that fine, I can see them bogging things down. Their appearance, at least in wireframe mode changes when "converting to generic solid". Do you know if this lightens the load a bit or is it still the same mesh regardless?
  9. I think what would be useful is some kind of test suite. It would work really well for rendering speeds at least. Not sure how the GPU could be tested unless the VW team is willing to put in a method of turning on some kind of frame rates. A test suite would also allow people to see how things work cross platform and include the bazillion PC configs people get. I know I would be interested in comparing.
  10. Since I see that VW coders and software designers sometimes lurk in here to help answer some questions, I wouldn’t mind some advanced discussions on how I should be doing things to make my files and work more efficient. I like to push the limits of both software and hardware to achieve the best possible results so I spend a lot of time doing things that I think make the software more responsive and make renderings quicker. The thing is, I have no concrete proof that I should be doing these things or if they make any difference at all. I always thought, the efficiency of textures was very important, so any time I use an image map, I go through great length to keep them as dimensionally small as possible and I painstakingly adjust compression levels and select the best image format to make sure the file size is as small as possible. My rational for this is that if you have hundreds of textures going on in a render, it would be a lot easier on the software to load and buffer these smaller files. About a year ago, I extracted an image out of a vectorworks texture and noticed it was a png file, but I knew I imported it as a jpg file. I brought this up to Jim and eventually learned that Vectorworks converts all of our image maps to png regardless of what format we put in. Ever since, I have felt that I’ve been wasting my time compressing these files because vectorworks will change it anyways. These are the types of questions I would like answered on a more factual level. Here are a bunch of a questions along that line: Is it more efficient to use procedural textures or image map base textures? Should we be saving our image maps in PNG before importing them? If we do import our image maps as PNG, does the compression settings we set stay intact or does vectorworks change them anyways? Does the file size of images have any bearing on speed or performance? I also have the same types of questions when it comes to modelling. My belief is that native procedural objects are more efficient than meshes and 3D Polygons, but are they really? Are procedural objects more efficient than meshes? What I mean by procedural is; objects generated from VW tools with no conversion (an extruded polygon with fillet edges or multiple levels of add or subtract solids) Does converting these objects to “Generic Solids” make things more efficient? Are Sub-D objects efficient? The heavy lined appearance of them gives me the impression that they are not, so again, I convert them to generic solids which gives the visual appearance of a not so intense object. But maybe I’m wasting my time and removing editable for absolutely no reason at all. I’m hoping someone that knows the inner workings of vectorworks could shine some light on some of these things so that we can improve the way we and the software works.
  11. The notes for the GPU's is very interesting. I was drafting up specs for a PC if Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro relatively soon. If I had to buy today, I would be getting a 36 core Dell or HP but I had the Nvidia Quadro 4000 specked in it. According to the notes, a GTX 1080 would be a better choice... Does vectorworks take advantage of dual gpu's or is that just a waste of money? Sure hope Apple does something quick because I am just salivating for an upgrade.
  12. Although I learned the crease all edges option really quick. I agree that the default action when converting to subdivisions should already have all edges creased. Its very jarring to have your object turn into a blob especially if you are trying this out for the first time. I'm not sure why or how anyone would predict or want the blob outcome. The reason you made that object in the first place is because you want it to use it as your base. As mentioned, its not a big deal because there is a solution but it just makes sense from an interface perspective that the object should retain its shape after the initial command.
  13. Altivec

    Color Picker Bug

    Very Interesting zoomer. Mine was already set to "generic RGB" and I still get that problem. I tried playing around with it a bit and found that if I switch it over to "Device RGB" I get the values that I originally entered. But if I exit the color picker and go back in, the setting goes back to "generic RGB" with the wrong values. So each time I have to manually change it back to "Device RGB" to get my values back. Thanks zoomer... this helps me out that I at least don't have to write the numbers down because I have a way of getting the values back but this is still a very important bug that affects everyone and needs to be quashed.
  14. Altivec

    Color Picker Bug

    This is another one of those bugs thats been around for years that nobody ever says anything because its so obvious that you just expect it to get fixed in the next service pack, but it never does. So I'm finally bringing it up! I'm not sure if this happens in Windows but in OSX, if you use the color picker sliders (i.e.: RGB, HSB...) VW accepts the colour correctly and all is good. That is, until you want to edit or tweak it. If you go back into the color picker, the values you chose are all slightly off. I have had to resort to writing all my values down so I am able to edit these colours, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. I am hoping that this can get fixed really soon.
  15. What is the purpose of all the preview options? Is that just there to fiddle around to look at your texture that one time? Just seemed common sense to me that this was intended to make your preview icons and it was just broken. If its a wish, I don't think there is much work for them to do. They already did it all. I am able to create the preview I want, it just needs to be saved that way.
  16. This is something I've never understood and can't determine if its just a long standing bug or if there is some other logical reason why it works this way. When creating a texture, half of the dialog box is devoted to "Preview Options" I can adjust my scale nicely so I can set the preview to show the subtitles of my texture, I can view it as a cube or sphere..., I can even turn on and off colour, reflectivity, transparency, and bump. All great... Until I press OK and accept the texture. Regardless of how nice I've set up my preview, the icon and preview in the resource browser shows up flat and zoomed out.... Its worked like this forever, hasn't anybody over there noticed this? Is there a reason why it works this way?
  17. The current (2013) MacPro will dramatically improve just about everything you mentioned compared to an iMac. The SSD in the MacPro's are fast. So the loading of large files is way faster. The graphics card are much better and you will get fluid open GL on large files. For rendering speed improvements it depends. If you get a 4 core Mac Pro, it won't be much different that an iMac. There are differences in each CPU but the current MacPro's CPU is over 3 years old and the current iMacs is newer than that. When you jump to an 8 core or 12 core MacPro, there is no comparison. The MacPro will crush any iMac in dramatic fashion. If you have a lot of textures, you also need RAM to feed those cores. So get at least 32GB. I am also looking at upgrading my MacPro and was really upset yesterday that there were no updates, again! I cooled off a little when I read on a rumour site that they received info from a reliable source that it wasn't quite ready but will be released no later than the end of November. If you can hold off a month, I think it will be worth the wait. Since its been 3 years, the improvements will be dramatic. The CPU's are 2 generations behind and Graphics Cards are 3 generations behind. They did not reduce the price to reflect their neglect so I would not recommend buying a current MacPro. Just to give you a comparison. I priced out a DELL machine yesterday and for the same price I can get 12 core E5v2 MacPro, I could buy a 36 core E5v4 Dell. To be fair, the Dell was missing a lot of the goodies found in a MacPro but the important parts of the DELL, CPU and GPU, would totally kill the Current MacPro. As usual, you have to expect to pay the Apple Tax so I don't think they will offer a 36 core for what you will pay for 12 today, but I'm expecting some dramatic improvements. Hope that helps answer some of your questions.
  18. Jim, I would really love everything you mentioned, Altering camera effects, such as depth of field, at each point would give presentations a super professional look. I envision this working like a renderworks camera works with layer sheets, So you make your path and fine tune your camera settings in a design layer. Then you create a viewport and assign it to a sheet layer. The OIP in the sheet layer would have your video codecs and such (like renderworks styles) and if you need to edit your camera or path you double click the viewport and hit edit camera. The only problem I have with your wish such as object animations is that you are adding an additional level of complexity. Don't get me wrong, I would love all those things. I am just concerned that if we get too carried away, the wish won't be considered. Right now, I would be happy with being able to some simples pan shots, zooms and rotations. After we get that, then I will say what the heck, where is all the other stuff.... lol.
  19. rDesign... Have you used AnimationWorks. I have considered buying it but didn't for a few reasons. 1) I hate buying plug-ins for the simple reason of the unknowns (will this work in future versions, if there are bugs will the developer support and fix it) 2) Vectorworks includes basic animation. So its something I already paid for. Why should I have to pay for a plug-in that gives me functionality that I am already suppose to have. Seeing how bad this tool currently is, I would expect it to be high on the list for a refresh, so my wait continues. 3) I was not impressed with any of the demo animations I've seen. Usually demo's are suppose to show you the best of the best and all i've seen is very low polygon count scenes rendered in open GL. How does this handle supper complex scenes with high polygon counts rendered in custom renderworks? If someone has experience doing some complex stuff in animation works, I sure would appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
  20. I know VR is all the rage these days, but to some of us, animation is a very important medium for presentations that we use or would like to use. Having slight rotations and panning on views just like the videos used to showcase VW, makes presentations much more dynamic. (I’m sure that none of the animations in the VW videos are actually made in VW) So I would really like to see an improved interface for animation. I know that VW is not suppose to be an animation power house but there has got to be a better way of doing some basic animation than what we got. I use my views for working. I don’t want to mess up my working environment with hundreds of irrelevant views that I have to somehow assemble in some bizarre interface. Why can’t there be a tool that combines a viewport camera with the polyline tool. You make your path and at each point you can adjust your camera and the duration it takes to get to that point from the last point. Again, nothing too complex but something that is at least usable.
  21. Oh... I can see it being done by accident. I could be wrong but I don't think there is a way to see who it is that either down or up votes us. I was just puzzled because this is one of my more tamer posts with 100% of its content going towards trying to help. I'll go with accident because that makes the most sense but if it was someone else that down voted me for another reason, I would really appreciate to hear why. Thanks.
  22. I'm not sure why I got down voted for trying to help someone out. If you down vote me, I would at least appreciate a reason so that I can improve myself. As it stands, I have no idea what I did wrong.
  23. I agree that although the new Rail tool is much improved, they messed up some very key elements. We already have a discussion about some of these issues under the wish list. I'll paste the link but not sure if that will work to get you there, if not, its currently on the second page of the wishiist section. The wish list works on a voting system so the more votes it gets, the better chance it has to get fixed, so I encourage you to mention your issue there and vote it up by clicking the up arrow next to the titles name. Its currently one of the leading candidates. To answer one of your questions though, to change the pitch or Z axis, you must use the 3D line mode to get a start and end point in the OIP. You can watch a youtube clip here (the z-axis info is near the end if you want to skip ahead.
  24. Maybe... I guess we should report it as a bug. That way it can be reviewed by committee so a solution can be discussed. or maybe its better as a wishlist item so that we can offer our opinions. I would suggest something like, upload change file to server and then make a correct link to it. (PS. Just joking around Jim, or am I...)
  25. its been over 24 hours and the link to the change notes is still not working. Its kind of strange to me that this is not found to be important. It literally should take a couple of seconds to fix.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...