Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Spectacular


About herbieherb

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I had the same nasty bug once. Changing the GI settings helped sometimes, but not reliably. The same artifacts just showed up in other renderings. The only thing that helped in the long run was to locate the causing object and redraw it. Finding the object was quite tedious because the splotches occurred with a certain randomness. So I tried to reproduce the error with as few objects as possible until I could locate the cause.
  2. You can try to delete half of the geometry in a test file to find out if the cause was in this geometry or not. So you continue to work your way forward until you get to the source.
  3. Change this setting in a Renderworks renderstyle and export with this renderstyle.
  4. No offend, it coul'd have been just a bit misleading to users who are less familiar with hardware.
  5. With a NAS, you could simply set the shared library folder as a workgroup folder. However, since the libraries can easily contain large amounts of data, and Vectorworks needs to check all libraries for changes each time it starts up, it is recommended to synchronize the data to a faster local folder. The same applies to external cloud solutions, where there is no getting around synchronization.
  6. Not even on the paper, and it throttles because of the iMacs form-factor to about 80% of its potential performance. In single-core tasks this iMac is about as fast as a stock cooled Ryzen 7 3700x. And as always Apple wants me to pay the full price of the i9-9900 in addition to the price of the base configuration. But yes, in a Mac centred view you're absolutely right.
  7. stop kidding ūüėĄ
  8. I made a somewhat strange discovery while developing my ExportImages script. It's that Vectorworks always produces differently sized images when rendering raster images. Most of the time, this only makes up a few pixels. But I still wonder why this is the case and if it can be prevented. For certain images, a pixel-exact export is necessary, if no changes should be visible during later layouts, e.g. in Indesign. Here's the thread where we found the issue:
  9. I tried Twinmotion. It was great for Video and I guess that together with VR glasses it is even more impressive. But for static Renderings i don't have time to mess around with export/import, setting textures, exchanging trees etc. I adjust the camera and render with renderworks. I don't need hyper realistic renderings, as we mainly do it to double check our ideas but in the end of the day we also want to show some of these to our customers. This is what i get out of Twinmotion after wasting time with import/export, changing textures and objects etc.: This is what i get out of Renderworks with less than a minute Rendertime: So Twinmotion is just a waste of time for me in most cases. The only case i use it is when i want to show the model to the customer in motion. Of course, with live renderers the whole thing is much more accessible and simple. But if you know Renderworks there is no reason to switch to live renderers at the moment, unless you want to show the client the 3D model directly, make movies or VR. I am also excited that Enscape will soon be part of Vectorworks. But even there, the PCIe bus is not a bottleneck. When rendering, the whole model is already in GPU memory anyway. The PS5 will show where the journey will take us when the model no longer needs to be in GPU memory. Maybe you're right and we'll exceed the 16GB/s capacity of the 16x PCIe-3.0 lane in the next three years. So everybody has to ask himself if you put more money into a motherboard where you don't need the feature you paid more for at least a few years, or if you put the money in things that makes your system faster now. Especially because the 3D live renderers are currently undergoing extreme development and the future system requirements are hardly foreseeable, the second strategie could also turn out to be well.
  10. Quotations should not be shortened in such a way as to change their meaning. Of course the graphics card can be a bottleneck for Vectorworks. Typically, the size of the VRAM is critical. I would also not install a GTX 1660 Ti today and probably take an RX 5700 xt instead, but not because of the PCIe 4.0, but because it is a very cheap and performant card with 8GB VRAM. The RTX 2070 Super is also a good offer. For the majority of users, the GTX 1660 Ti is certainly fast enough for Vectorworks. But if you use live renderers, you'll want something faster, whereby the performance increase over the RTX 2080 Ti doesn't justify the price anymore. This is then only worthwhile for very specific workloads. With CPU it's quite the opposite. Here you get proportionately about the same amount of additional performance for the extra charge including the very high specced Threadripper 3990wx. Therefore it is definitely worth it to do the math, because for someone who spends much time of the day with CPU renderings, even the very expensive Threadripper processors can pay off quickly: hardware prices per performance.pdf
  11. Yes, especially with the realtime renderers it is quite possible that they could make use of more bandwidth. I have never tested this before. My statement only referred to Vectorworks itself, where I haven't found a method to push the PCIe-3.0 bus to its limits. Maximum was 20-30%, so I would not see the PCIe-3.0 bus of the graphics card as a critical bottleneck for Vectorworks in the near future.
  12. I'm very skeptical whether a PCIE-4 graphics card brings a big advantage for Vectorworks. In my experience it is not the bandwidth of the PCIe connection that is bottlenecking, but the single-core performance of the CPU and the clock speed of the GPU. According to my measurements on a RTX 2070 Super, even on my huge test file, the bus interface load never exceeds 20%. From this point of view Vectorworks would not really benefit from PCIe-4 besides the fast hard disk, but that's exactly what the 550 boards with direct connection for M.2-SSD are for. Of course, if you plan to use realtime renderers, if they turn out to benefit from PCIe-4.0, and if you actually want to upgrade the GPU in the future, then it coul'd turn out that the 570 motherboard was worth it. For a Ryzen system I wouldn't use 2400 MHz RAM. 3200 MHz CL16 RAM costs almost the same, but gives you a good 5% extra performance in OpenGL according to my own measurements.
  13. If you render a lot on that machine, I would recommend a Threadripper 3000. The question is whether you want to get the one that costs 1000.- or 4000.- more. That depends on how much you really render. Use the Cinebench multicore results as a guide and calculate (extra charge/life cycle)-(salary*saved rendering time). The top threadripper is about 3.5x as fast as the Ryzen 9 3900. So if you are rendering all day long, you woul'd have the money back within a few months. But if you do not render a lot, the Ryzen is also a very good choice. The mainboard is a little overkill, because you don't have any components that use PCIE-4.0. A B450 Mainboard woul'd do as well. Put the money in faster clocked RAM with good timings. Bout 3200 MHz CL16.


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...