Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M5d

  1. https://www.vectorworks.net/support/bugsubmit For future reference.
  2. Umm yeah, where has it gone?
  3. You managed to solicit these replies in the original Roadmap thread:
  4. This video covers general RAM testing on the two M1 options, his testing is pretty helpful, but it's not CAD specific is the only caution . . . P.S. His conclusions are indexed in the timeline. Other M1 videos / comparisons by the same guys: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo11Rczpzuj2XcB5VdnAbbMyB3m57teOD
  5. And a little more to back up the above: architosh.com/2021/04/apples-new-m1-imacs-are-they-fast-for-cad-3d-users The rubber will hit the road, and NV, once we see the next tier of Apple's line up, hopefully with a preview at WWDC in six weeks. This would be consistent with the way Apple has introduced their Pro level machines over recent years. And with the iMac Pro already discontinued, it seems even more likely they'll do it again this year.
  6. Maybe Mac Catalyst will evolve now, so that bringing mac OS Apps (once they're A/S native) to the iPad, is as efficient as porting iPad Apps to Apple Silicon Macs. It appears they're heading that way, with the iPad Pro being made to appear, more or less, as capable as a desktop.
  7. Interview with Maxon & Lunar: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCqdm_5Tayc
  8. Almost forgot, there is another factor in the mix that @JuanP may have overlooked?; that's additional performance boosts Vectorworks will receive when it supports Metal and shifts to natively supporting Apple Silicon. A quick cut n' paste of that info: From the Planet Vectorworks review of the M1: For Vectorworks users, M1 chips are anticipated to speed up performance of everyday design tasks, such as rendering, drawing regeneration, and section updates. As more testing and reviews roll out to vet Macs with M1 chips and the design community moves toward greater adoption of the new technology, Johnson said he expects that next fall’s release of Vectorworks 2022, with Apple’s Metal technology fully supported, will shine on M1 chips. “The Apple silicon technology performance promises are also aligned with rendering solutions that will find their way to our customers in the near future,” said Johnson. Johnson frames it for Vectorworks this way. “For Vectorworks customers, the 2021 software is compiled for Intel-based Macs. Apple engineering has quite impressively delivered performance improvements that are immediately evident using Vectorworks 2020 and 2021, thanks to the Rosetta 2 emulation mode. We expect another performance boost with the upcoming release of a Universal Binary solution for Vectorworks. And future versions of Vectorworks will be compiled natively for M1 and will see even greater performance gains. When the Apple Silicon version is coming isn't clear, estimates have varied from: To: “[Steve] Johnson sums it up by forecasting that continued development of a Universal Binary solution, which should be available long before Apple’s five-year projection for continuing to sell Intel machines, will ensure even greater performance for users because it will support both Apple and Intel architectures.” - Dec. 10th 3:18pm 2020 But it is worth noting, the Roadmap V1 - V4 lists “Apple Silicon Support” as Scheduled, i.e. “a fair assumption” for the next release: “Supporting Universal Binary for Apple's new M1 processors is a top priority.” Based on the second quote by Steve Johnson above however, support in the initial release of 2022 seems unlikely, but with metal done at that point, I'm guessing from the conviction listed in the Roadmap, that attention will be squarely on addressing the A/Silicon version.
  9. This is not advice, but coincidently this comparison between the two platforms, focusing on the current value proposition around your budget, was just posted. As to the M1 not being listed on the system requirements, read this - Mac Arm - M1 Processor. Currently it states all issues are resolved. @JuanP?
  10. @JuanP could you better explain what NV's "official" position on Vectorworks under Rosetta is now? The M1 statement appears to exist in lieu of official support; while it states approximately nine months of ongoing testing has occurred and that the outstanding issues found under Rosetta have been resolved with the latest Big Sur release, it still concludes, "Our QA team is continuing to test Vectorworks and Vision, and we will keep updating this information on a regular basis. It's not clear how the entirety of the M1 statement is meant to be read now, it's not clear when some items, like the Big Sur note, were added, and it's not clear what is meant as "official" when the following note appears midway through the statement: Note: Please be advised, that if you plan to use any of the new Macs, we as of this date do not have official testing results to share with you. We recommend you follow this thread and check back for our official updates on testing results. The current situation seems deliberately confused and inconclusive; on the one hand you appear to give quasi support for Apple Silicon, by stating that the best part of an annual cycle has now gone into QA testing with no remaining issues, while on the other hand providing no "official" confirmation of that support. This, I assume, is meant to be read as a "buyer beware" caution. Presumably your QA team, or legal, have good reason for preventing a statement of "official" support? Given the duration, could we know what that reason is?
  11. As I understand it, this step (Datasmith) will make the Live-Sync plugin possible in a future release . . . that (finally) will warrant some hoopla!
  12. It's likely the Efficiency Cores only contribute a small amount to the overall scores in something like Cinebench. Anandtech found the Efficiency Cores can contribute 20 - 33% in some general tests. I've also read (somewhere) that software needs to be written for if, or when, it uses either or both Core types, don't know if that was related to Apple's OS and chips though. Whatever the case, opinion and analysis have been unanimous that Apple's Cores are pretty amazing for their power budget, which presumably means Apple is set to gain a definite performance advantage in its laptops, AIOs and small desktops. Hopefully this brings more software across as well. isapplesiliconready.com is tracking the transition, there's a "3d apps" category at the bottom of the page.
  13. This sounds like your issue @zoomer: ‌macOS Big Sur‌ 11.2 improves Bluetooth reliability and fixes the following issues: - External displays may show a black screen when connected to a Mac mini (M1, 2020) using an HDMI to DVI converter Maybe mike m, Don and zoomer should be on NV's payroll for leaping in . . .
  14. Thanks @JuanP, I look forward to your update and the new company thread. If it helps, the context for the concern above is that, collectively, the information and answers given to date have effectively covered all eventualities while specifying none. That is, we have the prospect of Vectorworks' Apple Silicon support being scheduled anywhere from the next version, up to five years out from now. Whatever the case may be, long or short, knowing where NV expects to land on A/S support will inform purchases in the leading period. If Vectorworks is going A/S native with the 2022 version, then holding out for the A/S machines Apple will deliver later this year makes sense. If however, as Steve Johnson has speculated, an A/S native version of Vectorworks may take much longer, then the current Intel machines, along with a potential update to the Intel Mac Pro, are the better option. Either way, these are the safe upgrade avenues depending on which way NV needs to go. While Rosetta 2 offers early adopters a transitional space to experiment in, it’s not without its expected issues, so I don’t believe that’s a particularly good, or viable, longterm option where stability / dependability is required. And so, just for completeness, the flip side of the safe options above are; purchasing an A/S Mac and not getting Vectorworks in an A/S native version for many years out; or, alternatively, purchasing a big ole Intel Mac and seeing Universal Binaries disappear all too quickly, because of any additional overhead that may represent to developers. Lastly, the reason I emphasised and requested a reference from @SteveJ on the quoted five year Apple/Intel plan; is that, that outcome would result in solid, industry wide, support for Universal Binaries over at least that period, plus some. This, ideally, looks to be a best case scenario from Apple, because it takes away any uncertainty associated with purchases on their Intel-side, particularly the Mac Pro, for some years to come. So if possible, confirmation the Planet Vectorworks article was referenced, or based on developer discussions with Apple, would be very helpful!
  15. I don't know how Graphisoft utilises their forums, but for reference, they did provide a couple timely, official, centrally placed, well rounded and linked statements covering the M1, Apple Silicon and how they're handling the transition: https://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/knowledgebase/130674/ https://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/knowledgebase/130695/ This may, in fact, be no different to what Nemetschek Vectorworks is doing, but from Graphisoft's communications in two posts, I came away with a clear, comprehensive, overview of their official position, their releases ahead and how Archicad currently performs on the M1's; something sifting the runes and contradictions here has yet to provide.
  16. @JuanP is there a reason the M1 thread was locked and limited when it was setup? Unlike the OS threads, we have information, questions and randomly addressed answers that have been smattered, scattered and somewhat inconsistent on the transition: For example, in the Roadmap and the roadmap thread you indicate (as a fair assumption) that Nemetschek Vectorworks is "aiming" for the next release (Vectorworks 2022) to provide Apple Silicon / Universal Binary support (Quote - "Supporting Universal Binary for Apple's new M1 processors is a top priority."), but then, in the Planet Vectorworks article, @SteveJ is quoted with references to a much looser projection around Apple having a 5 year timetable for selling Intel Macs; "Johnson sums it up by forecasting that continued development of a Universal Binary solution, which should be available long before Apple’s five-year projection for continuing to sell Intel machines, will ensure even greater performance for users because it will support both Apple and Intel architectures." If Apple does indeed have a 5 year timetable for selling Intel based Macs, that would provide confidence in Intel based purchases, because Universal Binaries would need to run for at least the next 5-7 years. But it is not clear where Steve Johnson or Chris Conard sourced the information on Apple's 5 year plan for Intel based machines. Can we get a reference? Alternatively, in direct contrast, @Ian Lane's earlier input was very non-committal on Universal Binaries and oblivious to any 5 year plan from Apple: Three representatives providing three very different responses on what to expect from NV on Mac compatibility. Maybe the M1, or another official Apple Silicon, thread could be opened up to all matters surrounding the transition, current compatibility and user questions? So that we have an ongoing, official single source for NV's transition policy to plan around and get reliable answers from. At the moment, it is not possible to decipher any firm policy, or even who is speaking authoritatively, given the way the current information has varied from one company representative to another and how it has been distributed.
  17. Yes, I’ve been coming to a similar view @zoomer. I did think the best option would be to buy an Intel Mac soon and jump over the transition period. There was talk of the iMac Pro getting a refresh around about now, which I assumed would have been a 10nm Chip and RDNA2 graphics. Mostly, it was the new graphics capabilities (software permitting) that I believed could change life as we know it. But it’s not looking likely, Intel has pushed their delivery dates (again), NV’s position on maintaining Universal Binaries during the run-off isn’t clear and if the Bloomberg report is correct, Apple will transition faster than anticipated. Like mike m and Sky, I’m at the tail end of my current Mac, without a problem though, so hopefully the dust settles a bit in the new year.
  18. @mike m oz will be interested to hear how you go.
  19. Five years sounds about right, but if NV has something concrete to give us on Universal Binaries, that would be helpful. I've had a couple cracks at getting an answer; the first in this thread got no reply, the second in another thread got this . . . "For a while," doesn't exactly make for a confident Intel/Mac purchase at this point.
  20. That's surprisingly positive. I'm curious about the "five-year projection" closing remark by Steve Johnson (SteveJ?). Developer knowledge? "Johnson sums it up by forecasting that continued development of a Universal Binary solution, which should be available long before Apple’s five-year projection for continuing to sell Intel machines, will ensure even greater performance for users because it will support both Apple and Intel architectures." Apple gave themselves 2 years during the transition keynote and Bloomberg recently backed that up: "The company said it expects to finish the transition away from Intel and to its own silicon in 2022."
  21. M5d

    2021 Public Roadmap

    I think it's worth having your statement readable here too @JuanP, and I'm pleased to hear you're "confident" the TM Link will move into development, but I've gotta say, this is a long way from where we previously expected the Link was at. There's a discordant chasm between Archicad having already integrated the Datasmith format, the actuality you've now detailed and what was implied, and left unattended, in the long running narrative of the Twinmotion thread. No matter the frustration of this (efficiency) slipping further off into the distance, I guess it's safe to say the Roadmap will prevent us from becoming similarly removed.
  22. M5d

    2021 Public Roadmap

    Thanks @twk, yes it's becoming an Epic saga. 😏 I think ultimately, despite the existing workflows, the Direct Link to TM will be somewhat tantalising for all, given Epic's game engine demos. But you've gotta wonder if they aren't trying to play bully with it for some sort of exclusive arrangement, after what's been aired by the whole Epic versus Apple dispute.
  23. M5d

    2021 Public Roadmap

    Well, it's pretty hard to read the tea leaves on why a cross platform offering has gone wanting here . . . Nemetschek Vectorworks: Formally Listed. Nemetschek Vectorworks: Acknowledged as the best option, because Twinmotion is a cross platform offering. Positive feedback from Twinmotion (Abvent) on their participation. Nemetschek Vectorworks: We're working on it. Nemetschek Vectorworks: Stay tuned, we're working on it. A third party, @JRA-Vectorworks-CAD, enquires and offers a hand. Nemetschek Vectorworks: Outcome unknown. From the highest level at Vectorworks, "we're working on" it. It's worth noting that Graphisoft and Epic have a deal, which sees Twinmotion bundled into Archicad subscriptions now. Nemetschek Vectorworks: Enscape, second (non-Mac) Link, is about to drop and Twinmotion is happening during Q1 2020! Epic and Graphisoft are working together on the "next-gen of Twinmotion" . . . http://www.aecbytes.com/newsletter/2019/issue_97.html Nemetschek Vectorworks: Connections with Unreal Studio / Twinmotion / Epic to be ready for the 2021 "cycle" . . . ? Nemetschek Vectorworks is said to have verbally blamed Epic for the lack of a Direct Link and Nemetschek Vectorworks doesn't dismiss this post. Nemetschek Vectorworks: Stay tuned, we're working on it! (4 months ago) So yeah, who knows what's going on. I just thought it odd after the Architosh article yesterday, and after all this, that Twinmotion is not specifically mentioned on the Roadmap. In most cases, these string along, "stay tuned," replies have not been spontaneously given, they've been in response to the escalating demands for a cross platform solution for Vectorworks. There is the whiff of some background politics going on here, Epic's CEO isn't exactly rational, but then, look at how well Graphisoft is working with Epic and Epic recently issued Maxon with a MegaGrant to strengthen "workflow integration with Epic", so that doesn't stack up. By all indications Nemetschek is tight with Epic, and why wouldn't Epic want to facilitate a Direct Link with Vectorworks, half of the user base is theirs by default of having no other option. The blaming of Epic really does seem to come out of left field. But who knows?
  24. M5d

    2021 Public Roadmap

    Architosh has an article up on new features in the mid-year release of Archicad, which now includes the Unreal Engine Datasmith Export as well. I had assumed this item on the Roadmap was related to the Direct Link with Twinmotion, without saying so much. But that's not so clear now, given Archicad has had a Direct Link for quite some time without it and because Twinmotion is not specifically mentioned. Epic was said to be the holdup in the other thread . . . Is it right to assume that the "Datasmith Export" and the TM Link are related or one and the same? Due perhaps, to Epic unifying their exchange format?
  25. Thanks Zoomer, that made Apple's current position, or future advantage, clearer.
  • Create New...