Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alain

10.9 Maverick Upgrade and Vectorworks 2011 not working anymore

Recommended Posts

Things are all relative.

Everyone has the right to choose. No one (not Apple, not Microsoft, not NV) has made anyone upgrade. NV has been very clear and even has a compatibility chart so you can make an informed choice about upgrading and even Mac vs. PC.

That lost day means a loss of $1,000 +/- of billable time (on top of the cost of VSS.)

In theatre, where I work much of the time, $1,000 +/- per week of billable time can often be the norm. From my perspective you seem as profit oriented as NV. Is that ok, of course. So why is it so wrong for NV?

The reality is that VW exists because NV are able to generate revenue to support development and keep the shareholders happy.

KM

Share this post


Link to post
As for this ....

Probably far more complex than Vectorworks and most certainly being subject to tighter audit control.

Tighter audit controls I get as you were dealing with $$$

Complexity - doubt it very much - sorry but were you spinning the $$$ in 3D space without Parasolids back then?

Vectorworks = single user application processing some user input/output in real time, 2 application servers that I can see, ? lines of code

The app that I was responsible for = 500 simultaneous users (architecturally unlimited but you can only fit so many staff across two trading floors), processing all input and enquiries in real time (<100ms time is money) whilst simultaneously processing xx real time data and external trade feeds again < 100ms latency processed by >50 application servers, >1500 reports running on x distributed systems spread across 2 continents. All whilst maintaining accuracy for current and 30 year future accuracy of >$40 trillion in cash flows to the cent. And just under 4 million lines of code.

And that was just the London system. There were more than 50 instances all regionalised spread in data centres around the world.

So it may not have been too graphically challenging (although our dealer input screens were X-windows and Wacom A3 oversized tablets), Vectorworks is doing far less than our application was doing.

I think it would be fair to say that our app was at least as complex as Vectorworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Things are all relative.

Everyone has the right to choose. No one (not Apple, not Microsoft, not NV) has made anyone upgrade. NV has been very clear and even has a compatibility chart so you can make an informed choice about upgrading and even Mac vs. PC.

That lost day means a loss of $1,000 +/- of billable time (on top of the cost of VSS.)

In theatre, where I work much of the time, $1,000 +/- per week of billable time can often be the norm. From my perspective you seem as profit oriented as NV. Is that ok, of course. So why is it so wrong for NV?

The reality is that VW exists because NV are able to generate revenue to support development and keep the shareholders happy.

KM

Yes, I am interested in making profit. I live in a capitalistic society that relies on $. WIthout profit, I would have no roof over my head or food on my table.

I do not begrudge NVW making a profit. I begrudge them increasing profit while simultaneously decreasing quality and dedication to user satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problem sticking with the yearly upgrade / subscription cycle. The best solution for stability seems to be stepping along about six months behind the whole tech juggernaut's annual strides. There is an issue specific to VW on the Mac now however, which Ozzie?s comments highlight.

File import / update is not reliable. Whether from advancing features or new bugs, there have been major conflicts in the past and there's likely to be more down the road. The easy solution to a lot of problem solving, repair work, reworking or even worse, files with issues that straight up crash later versions during import, has previously been the same on the Mac as Ozzie has on Windows. That is, keeping multiple older versions running, particularly those prior to major underlying advances.

The construction industry has a lot of speculation; projects get shelved and then often spring back to life years down the track or simply roll across years in development. Those initial investments can be substantial and need to be preserved. Holding back on the OS to accommodate VW has its own problems and hardware upgrades can make it impossible.

Vectorworks needs a better support strategy adapted to the new reality of a fast moving OS cycle on the Mac. Maintaining the compatibility of older Vectorworks releases over multiple OS cycles shouldn't be linked to whether people are upgrading to the latest version or not. If anything, longer OS compatibility of older Vectorworks releases encourages and provides confidence in keeping up to date and adhering with the upgrade cycle, because it removes the fear associated with the conflict that now exists between staying current and playing Russian roulette with older files and slow moving clients. File problems are far more costly than paying a yearly subscription. Currently, each software edition now faces obsolescence just 12 months beyond the end of its release cycle, along with their associated files facing potential problems from then onward, a situation that does not suit this industry at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought one of the benefits of a BIM model is to allow interoperability between different packages. From design through to operations.

Kinda funny then that a lot of users won't use later version VW to work on files started in earlier versions.

Share this post


Link to post
I thought one of the benefits of a BIM model is to allow interoperability between different packages. From design through to operations.

Kinda funny then that a lot of users won't use later version VW to work on files started in earlier versions.

I think you?re linking two separate issues together there Assembly. External file exchange formats like IFC and GBXML are not subject to the issues that arise moving drawings forward from version to version. They?re not useful as a solution either, because they?re not designed to carry the editable functionality of the source file.

There?s no reluctance to move files forward, the results are simply unpredictable, to the point where some files can refuse to import into a later version of Vectorworks. If files move forward without issue, all is well and good. I tend to think the failures and problems that do occur migrating forward, are just a cost of the software progressing. Add to that the unpredictability of what we do and you get to many variables in files to waste time trying to either track down a cause or find a solution.

Until recent years we?ve always had a good alternative, i.e. keep multiple versions running and complete work in their native versions. Now however, when you combine an OS advancing at an annual pace and as Jim states, making regular ?massive changes? with Vectorworks being supported just one OS beyond its release cycle, the ability to maintain the coexistence of files with their native version of Vectorworks is precariously short.

Edited by M5d

Share this post


Link to post
The app that I was responsible for = 500 simultaneous users (architecturally unlimited but you can only fit so many staff across two trading floors), processing all input and enquiries in real time (<100ms time is money) whilst simultaneously processing xx real time data and external trade feeds again < 100ms latency processed by >50 application servers, >1500 reports running on x distributed systems spread across 2 continents. All whilst maintaining accuracy for current and 30 year future accuracy of >$40 trillion in cash flows to the cent.

$40 trillion or -$40 trillion? It was CitiGroup right? ;-)

In all seriousness Ian, this has gone off track. I would contend that you really have no idea as to the comparative complexity of VW versus the CitiGroup banking app, so probably better to not comment.

The fact is, NVM made a conscious decision to adopt a business model that is becoming more and more common in the industry. Like it or not, it's probably here to stay. As users, I think it would be more productive for us to continue to demand better stability in x.00 releases, better transition tools for firms that implement multiple licenses, and increased focus on improving core tools.

V-G.

Share this post


Link to post

As for those that claim hobbyists use, I suggest that you look at some of the areas that VW are heavily marketed. I regularly speak to people who already claim that VW is far too expensive and for the limited use that they would get from VW simply make it uneconomic for them to use compared with traditional drawing methods. Whilst some professions may get to use VW on a daily basic, there are some areas which, as I say are targeted, probably wouldn't use VW for more than 10 days a year and the cost of entry is prohibitive and even more so when their version has obsolescence built in.

I don't see much of NVM's marketing these days aimed at hobbyists. IMO, those that get 10 days of use per year should have little or no say about the future direction of the application development.

V-G

That's really an arrogant comment. Why do you think that people who have paid the same amount of money for software as you (assuming you paid for it personally and not the company that you work for) should have less say over things than yourself just because they use it less?

Also, garden design is not a hobbyist thing. Its clearly enough of a sector for Vectorworks to be directly marketed at.

Because we have been users (10+ licenses) for 21 years, have beta tested for 15 years, run user groups, worked closely with DG/NNA/NVW and distributors to improve the software, participated in focus groups, online forums, mailing lists, taught MC/VW to countless parties.

That's why.

Vectorus Geekus

A man with absolutely nothing against garden design.

Share this post


Link to post
Vectorworks needs a better support strategy adapted to the new reality of a fast moving OS cycle on the Mac.

My preference would be to make converting/upgrading of files more reliable (converting to v2014 has been a reasonably good experience for us). This, surely, is the ultimate solution as it allows everyone to take advantage of advances straight way and forget about supporting multiple versions of VW within an office. This is particularly the case when you have projects that span over multiple years.

Share this post


Link to post
Vectorworks needs a better support strategy adapted to the new reality of a fast moving OS cycle on the Mac.

My preference would be to make converting/upgrading of files more reliable (converting to v2014 has been a reasonably good experience for us). This, surely, is the ultimate solution as it allows everyone to take advantage of advances straight way and forget about supporting multiple versions of VW within an office. This is particularly the case when you have projects that span over multiple years.

^ This. The main upgrade pain point that users call in with is (more commonly than OS compatibility) issues with file conversion and workspace import/preferences migration to the new version.

If we can remove these snags from the upgrade process, the Service Select program and upgrading yearly will become much more appealing.

Edited by JimW

Share this post


Link to post
Vectorworks needs a better support strategy adapted to the new reality of a fast moving OS cycle on the Mac.

My preference would be to make converting/upgrading of files more reliable (converting to v2014 has been a reasonably good experience for us). This, surely, is the ultimate solution as it allows everyone to take advantage of advances straight way and forget about supporting multiple versions of VW within an office. This is particularly the case when you have projects that span over multiple years.

^ This. The main upgrade pain point that users call in with is (more commonly than OS compatibility) issues with file conversion and workspace import/preferences migration to the new version.

If we can remove these snags from the upgrade process, the Service Select program and upgrading yearly will become much more appealing.

Agree with you both 100%. It's not practical for us to operate multiple versions (and associated ancillary resources) at the same time, therefore a "full" upgrade is the best. I'd be hugely supportive of any mechanism that allowed simple transition of workspaces and plug-ins for a start.

V-G.

Share this post


Link to post

I won't upgrade to OS 10.9 at the office until I am confident that my essential software will run reliably on it. It is not very difficult to wait a few days after a new OS X release and check out discussion forums like this to see if there are problems with the key software releases that I depend upon. In my case, the version of Parallels that we use was the sticking point. Sometimes, it is just better to take a breath and wait a little while ...

Share this post


Link to post
In all seriousness Ian, this has gone off track. I would contend that you really have no idea as to the comparative complexity of VW versus the CitiGroup banking app, so probably better to not comment.

The fact is, NVM made a conscious decision to adopt a business model that is becoming more and more common in the industry. Like it or not, it's probably here to stay. As users, I think it would be more productive for us to continue to demand better stability in x.00 releases, better transition tools for firms that implement multiple licenses, and increased focus on improving core tools.

V-G.

The point that I made was that tools exist that when used properly allow highly complex computer applications to be managed very quickly and easily with regard to version control. It not like a building/landscape/(insert your discipline) design where changing one element can invalidate many/all others.

Quite correct. I cannot comment on how VW organise their development. They may well be a complete bunch of disorganised hackers where changing lines of code and reintegrating into other versions is hard, or they may be highly organised professionals like we were at Citi where everything change management is part of the standard process and managing multiple versions and changes was a breeze.

As for the adopted business models, that is a much wider topic of discussion. Subscription based models may suit some but not others.

Share this post


Link to post
[because we have been users (10+ licenses) for 21 years, have beta tested for 15 years, run user groups, worked closely with DG/NNA/NVW and distributors to improve the software, participated in focus groups, online forums, mailing lists, taught MC/VW to countless parties.

That's why.

Vectorus Geekus

A man with absolutely nothing against garden design.

Do I assume from this that your company have bought these 10+ licenses and that you have had no personal financial liability in the purchase of these? Unlike many VW users who personally have to pay for their licenses and therefor have to prioritise their expenditure on software against other necessities, it is easy for those who do not have to justify the cost of upgrading to overlook the fact that some of us have to prioritise a set of hyped up new features against a years caffeine intake and Internet access.

Glad you have nothing against garden design.

Share this post


Link to post
I cannot comment on how VW organise their development. They may well be a complete bunch of disorganised hackers where changing lines of code and reintegrating into other versions is hard, or they may be highly organised professionals like we were at Citi where everything change management is part of the standard process and managing multiple versions and changes was a breeze.

Or they may be highly organized and managed professionals, who work for a company that is forward-looking and doesn't see a huge financial upside to devote the required resources needed to re-code and support versions of their software that are three years old.

As for the adopted business models, that is a much wider topic of discussion. Subscription based models may suit some but not others.

Again, the cost of VSS is pretty insignificant as compared to almost every other line item in our company's financials.

V-G.

"Thar's gold in them hills."

Share this post


Link to post
[because we have been users (10+ licenses) for 21 years, have beta tested for 15 years, run user groups, worked closely with DG/NNA/NVW and distributors to improve the software, participated in focus groups, online forums, mailing lists, taught MC/VW to countless parties.

That's why.

Vectorus Geekus

A man with absolutely nothing against garden design.

Do I assume from this that your company have bought these 10+ licenses and that you have had no personal financial liability in the purchase of these? Unlike many VW users who personally have to pay for their licenses and therefor have to prioritise their expenditure on software against other necessities, it is easy for those who do not have to justify the cost of upgrading to overlook the fact that some of us have to prioritise a set of hyped up new features against a years caffeine intake and Internet access.

Glad you have nothing against garden design.

You could assume that, but you'd be wrong. As a shareholder in our company, I had a vested financial interest in the decision to adopt VSS. As the managing technical director, I continue to have a vested interest in seeing that our team has the latest tools and that those tools work properly.

We too prioritize, and while there are always features in a new release that we don't need and will never use, there are also features which make the upgrade worthwhile. Not to mention, the critical element of technical support (both from NVW and through this valuable group of message board users) is always better when one is using the latest version.

Again, my policy is to wait until SP1 (occasionally SP2) before making the switch. My time to implement the new system is budgeted for at the outset of the year, and it offers a chance to clean up wayward libraries, fix some bugs in our internally developed plug-ins, and call the staff together for a 2-3 hour "what's new" office training seminar. That time is well-spent and generates significant productivity improvements every time.

And you can take all that to the bank. Provided it is not invested in sub-prime mortgages.

V-G.

Share this post


Link to post
My preference would be to make converting/upgrading of files more reliable (converting to v2014 has been a reasonably good experience for us). This, surely, is the ultimate solution as it allows everyone to take advantage of advances straight way and forget about supporting multiple versions of VW within an office. This is particularly the case when you have projects that span over multiple years.

Yes, I?m always eager, nay hungry, to move on to a bigger better BIM future. I?m with you here; reliable conversion is definitely the ultimate solution. Running multiple versions is not good, it?s just the most secure solution we?ve had over a number of years. Seamless upgrade / file conversion sounds great, if we have it! I don?t know how well the other BIMs perform, but there?s a common refrain from Vectorworks reps, veterans and moderators alike on these boards, particularly around release time, that begins something like this; did you start a new file or convert an existing one?

Running multiple versions of the same software isn?t a solution I?ve come across elsewhere, but it is a solution I?ve needed and relied upon repeatedly in Vectorworks, particularly with larger files not converting well or crashing the import process. Seeing the length of what has represented file security for Vectorworks drawn down to just twelve months beyond the release cycle, strikes fear and trepidation into my BIM heart.

^ This. The main upgrade pain point that users call in with is (more commonly than OS compatibility) issues with file conversion and workspace import/preferences migration to the new version.

If we can remove these snags from the upgrade process, the Service Select program and upgrading yearly will become much more appealing.

I guess my point is, the issues Vectorworks has with file conversion / import from older versions is now synonymous with OS compatibility. Supporting just one OS beyond the release cycle combined with an annual OS cycle removes the traditional method Vectorworks has had for preserving and providing file security over time. Your snag?s snag Jim, is that ?if? at the start of your sentence. While I appreciate While I?m overjoyed that there appears to be a renewed effort going into stabilising Vectorworks, there?s a level of professional risk attached to the current neither nor situation that has arisen here, which I can?t say I appreciate.

Edited by M5d

Share this post


Link to post
I cannot comment on how VW organise their development. They may well be a complete bunch of disorganised hackers where changing lines of code and reintegrating into other versions is hard, or they may be highly organised professionals like we were at Citi where everything change management is part of the standard process and managing multiple versions and changes was a breeze.

Or they may be highly organized and managed professionals, who work for a company that is forward-looking and doesn't see a huge financial upside to devote the required resources needed to re-code and support versions of their software that are three years old.

Given NVM's track record of bungling the initial release of EVERY version going back to at least 2006, their record of SP 1 breaking functions that did work in the initial release, their inability to leverage multi-core processing for anything other than some Renderworks modes, and their on-going unwillingness (or inability) to lay out even a suggested timeline to transition to 64-bit architecture, there is FAR more evidence for IanH's disorganized hackers scenario than for a highly organized, forward-looking professional scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Again, my policy is to wait until SP1 (occasionally SP2) before making the switch.

Good in principle but I've found SP1 to less stable that the initial release of v2014.

Share this post


Link to post

So I gather. That's why I added SP2 as an occasional possibility. Let's hope things improve with the next SP.

VG

Share this post


Link to post

Well, put another way, the first release of 2014 is one if the most stable I've used of any releases.

Share this post


Link to post

Something is up with users that have gone from 2014 SP0 to SP1, however I havent been able to nail it down specifically yet.

For the time being, this procedure:

http://kbase.vectorworks.net/questions/1099/Resetting+Vectorworks+Preferences

...performed on machines behaving oddly after the patch seems to correct many or all of the issues. The steps above include wiping your workspaces and templates, but I think these two types of items are unrelated and could be backed up/replaced afterwards.

Edited by JimW

Share this post


Link to post

Not unreasonable to expect support for at least two versions back (2012)

BTW, what is so "major" about Mavericks? Apart from a few additional features it doesn't appear to be anything groundbreaking.

Can I ask, what was NVW's position when Snow Leopard was released in terms of prior version support? (that version of OSX was considered to be a major upgrade)

Share this post


Link to post

If your in a production environment with deadlines, No matter what version of VW your using, you should always wait for a couple SP's to come through of any OS.

The other modeling program I use is Modo 701 and their forum has had many comments about Mavericks compatibility issues, that are apparently Apples bugs to resolve.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

 

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.

×