Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

102 Spectacular

1 Follower

About Diamond

  • Rank
    500 Club

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Architecture + Design
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,883 profile views
  1. Redshift AMD support arrives as soon as the new Metal based version arrives, which should be in the next couple of months. Macs have been all AMD for years. It sounds as if they are looking to support as widely as possible, but Vega minimum was mentioned as a possibility on the Redshift forums. PS Apple still has bad blood towards Nvidia over a bad batch of GPUs they supplied years ago. Additionally Apple has a similar approach to GPUs as Nvidia does - they both want to add value by getting down to the ‘metal’ – hence CUDA and Apple’s Metal APIs. And that is why Maxon is so excited about the new Mac Pros that link up to 4 GPUs with 128GB of VRAM. PPS If you want to run Nvidia you need to use older OS versions.
  2. Hi Dom, Amazing work. Any chance of English versions? My Deutsch is not that good. 😃
  3. I don’t believe MacOS Catalina supports Nvidia GPUs, so until the new Metal compatible version arrives Radeon cards and Metal is off limits. The think current Mac Redshift version only supports older machines and/or eGPUs with Nvidia cards to get CUDA.
  4. If you look over on the Redshift Forums (sign-up required) there, an employee making it known there is keen back and forth between Apple and Maxon in getting C4D optimised for Metal 2. Maxon typically loves the MacOS platform, and it think it will be a point of pride for them to have one of, if not the fastest rendering workstation solutions available. The Mac rendering scene has been lean on options for years, and thankfully with the release of the Mac Pro, that is changing.
  5. The other rendering engine that makes complete sense for Mac is AMD Radeon ProRender. It is a CPU and GPU rendering solution, and would be both Mac and PC compatible. It is also already in C4D so should be readily compatible with Vectorworks. https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/radeon-prorender
  6. Redshift are about to release a Mac version that is Metal 2 based. That is, Radeon graphics compatible. They have been showing demos of this at recent Mac events running beta versions on the new Mac Pro. Apparently it is screaming (faster than CUDA) fast.
  7. Another PC only rendering option. Why was not a Mac version given higher priority, when Lumion already existed?
  8. Thanks for the comments At least the new solids modelling history negate the need for such long Undo history.
  9. Before reading this article it never occurred to me that Undo history could be causing (m)any of my issues. Cheers.
  10. Regarding today's blog post… http://blog.vectorworks.net/020620archpreferences? "Session > Maximum number of Undos > 42 Vectorworks tech support recommends a maximum of 25 undos, but I like to live on the edge, so I have mine set to 42 (fellow Douglas Adams fans might appreciate this). For my needs, I also have “Undo View Changes” set to “Grouping Similar View Changes.”" I was not aware of this recommendation. Why is this? Beyond memory usage, is there another reason such as stability?
  11. @shorter Am interested to know how you do this? (BTW, I don't blow up my viewports, I simply augment / trace over flattened design layer viewports.)
  12. This is where I am going to have to disagree. What you are producing needs to be fit-for-purpose, not BIM for the sake of BIM. And what part of BIM, are you referring to? Information, or the model? After all, the model is just another form of data. That is why there are LOD definitions for modelling, because modelling every extruded profile, screw and rivet brings most BIM packages to their knees (although maybe not ArchiCAD, and Vw 2020 is much better with large models). Why explain with extensive modelling what a spreadsheet can do more simply? And regarding detailing, how do you convey flashings and elements that are so thin that they are lost in a model? (Maybe there might be UI improvements to be able to display this within an exploded model view - but once again, why model the whole building when one detail would do) You need to understand each data medium (model, 2D drawing, schedule, spreadsheet, and so on) and what each does well to suit each purpose. Architecture is hard. There is rarely one size fits all (unless your work is extremely repetitive - and then maybe Revit would be more appropriate.) Vectorworks is mostly a design-BIM tool, that can also document. Revit’s strength is as a documentation tool. Hope that wasn’t too rambling.
  13. Whilst I still want the option for viewports to be either live or static, I certainly would like multi-core CPU access for hidden line renders.
  14. Not sure – but I suspect for reliability – as the project is a 28 story ~$750M hotel. And anecdotally most elevations and sections I have seen produced by Revit (without AutoCAD cleanup) look like rubbish.
  15. Over the timeline of any project, 2D and 3D will each be given more attention. For our workflows and any hybrid 2D/3D workflow (which Vectorworks is), live updating can be both a blessing and a curse. When focusing on 3D it is a blessing, because the elevations and sections reflect the direct inputs of the model. When focusing mostly on 2D it can be a curse, because 2D work often breaks model integrity. I have seen this recently on a large Revit based project where the (AutoCAD based) 2D plans, sections and elevations are a month behind the model. Working on the model meant that the plans, elevations and sections would be broken. I realise there may be a world where we transition to 3D documentation, but until that day arrives, we still need to produce 2D drawings. For this reason I would want viewports to have the option to be either live or static.


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...