cad@sggsa Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Good day All Could someone please inform me or direct me to an exiting thread as to the pros and cons of upgrading from version 12.5 to 2008. Do I have to buy a whole new package as that is what I have already done recently to upgrade from version10. The main reason would be that I have long(extremly) render time, where it takes more than 60min to render basic Stage and trussing layout in fastRender. Thank You Quote Link to comment
Tom G. Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I recently had cause to go back to 12.5 to do some instructing and I was surprised at how painful it was to use compared to the more effective habits I'd developed using V. 2008. Some of those improvements are the data display bar linked to the cursor, the icons for screen control and rendering now on the top of the page instead of the bottom, selected items now glow with a color and groups glow with an infill color--trust me, this is much better when trying to identify and select items. Plus lots more tools have been improved or simplified. I'm not prepared to give you a full accounting of V. 2008 improvements nor address your speed issues which I have not encountered. My own renderings take only a minute or so so I would say there is something fixable in your 12.5 file/files that should allow for much, much shorter rendering times and that an upgrade will not likely fix your speed issue but should add speed to your work processes. I design on a Mac, both Motorola and Intel CPU based. Perhaps someone else can suggest some fixes to the slow rendering times? Quote Link to comment
Ray Libby Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 It depends on how long ago you bought version 12. Try calling sales. BTW, tguy is correct, VW2008 has some great new features, go check it out on NNA's website. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted June 24, 2008 Author Share Posted June 24, 2008 Thank you for the reply's, much appreciated. We got the upgrade to 12.5 last year Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 Hello there again. So I had a look at the requirements for the upgrade and my PC has more than enough free space and is rated at a higher level. Would it be recomended to upgrade to 2008 with the problems I expeirence with VW12? (Execive long render times). Quote Link to comment
monkey Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Surely VW 2009 will be coming out soon, why dont you hang on until that comes out, I know it will probably be initially a bit buggy, but will save you having to upgrade again for a while Edited August 21, 2008 by monkey Quote Link to comment
M.CH Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 You need more RAM, and packages generally get faster with each generation. Do you use symbols? Try the RAM upgrade first, then a VW Upgrade, do a comparison using a VW trial and you will see the changes Quote Link to comment
bonus Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 My experience is that rendering time was almost reduced to 50%, just by upgrading to 2008. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 In Final Quality RenderWorks it takes about 3 Hours to render.... Yes I do use symbols, of lights(fixtures) etc, but that does not effect it that much, When using trusses and lights, there is just no point for me do do that type of render becuase of the time. MCH: So you say my 1.97GB of RAM is accually not enough? Thank you all Quote Link to comment
M.CH Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 You will find that XP alone will use some of the RAM, as soon as you start using virtual RAM processes will slow down. It is my understanding that XP can only address 3g of ram even if you install 4g Rendering is one of the most intensive processes for CPU and RAM, how big is the file? Can it be posted? When I render large stages 40mx30m I always make sure the trusses are square profile, you dont notice that in the renders. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thanks for hiunt on the trusses as ourd are all round and I know this is why it battles to render. The latest set of drawings ranged at 50-60MB files, but even a file less than 20MB will take that long, depending what is in the drawing. Best solution seems to upgrade my RAM to 4GB. Will I have to change any of the other parts of the PC? Quote Link to comment
Ray Libby Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Please put your OS in your signature including if it is 32bit or 64bit. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 All I know is this... System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2 Would that be a 32 or 64 bit?? Quote Link to comment
Ray Libby Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 More than likely 32 bit. In that case 3GB of ram is the max. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) So I can just add another gig of RAM and see if there is a small or big difference and then wait for 2009 to come out. sorted. Anybody know what makes 2009 better than 2008 other than that it is a newer version?? Edited August 21, 2008 by cad@sggsa Quote Link to comment
IanH Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 To clarify windows RAM limits. For 32bit, the limit is 4GB RAM. However, from this total, memory mapped devices take their share. So, from 4GB, you can soon be down to 3.5GB or less considering that a graphics card, not withstanding other devices, will take 256/512MB etc. This is certainly the case with Vista, don't know about XP but I suspect its going to be the same. Vista prior to SP1, Vista use to report the amount of RAM less the shared amount - ie usable amount but now it reports the full physical 4GB, and overlooks the fact that from this total, a significant proportion of GB will not be available. My desktop has 4GB physical RAM. It use to report 3.5GB or so but now reports 4GB even though I have exactly the same amount of usable RAM. I guess people were upset at buying 4GB RAM, only to be told by Vista that 3.5GB was fitted. I must admit that I was a but perterbed by this until I realised what was going on. The reason why I went for 4GB over 3GB was there was next to no price difference and for the small extra I got matched modules. Quote Link to comment
Ray Libby Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Ian, thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment
cad@sggsa Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 Thank You Ian It Does claify a lot Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.