As I said, a 64bit backend is ok for rendering? but without a 64bit GUI you won't be able to view your mesh if it is too big, any 32bit app will stall or crash if you load more than a few million polygons while a 64bit GUI allow you to view even a billion polygons without a problem (and I mean openGL view : no nead to render)?
Re-architected with a gigapolygon core that takes full advantage of both multi-processor and multi-core 32-bit and new 64-bit platforms, XSI now handles the tenfold increase in detail demanded by next-generation productions ? in tests handling a billion polygons on 64-bit systems. Critical functions are in many cases up to ten times faster than in previous versions of XSI, and a new memory management system makes it possible to render literally any scene that it is possible to load, regardless of physical memory limits.
First, to my eyes all of that looks like they're talking about the renderer. Where does it say "view"?
Secondly, they are saying *nothing* about the capabilities of the 32-bit and 64-bit renderer, only that the 64-bit has reached X polys in some test (which we have to assume was tailored to have as many polys as possible).
Looks like regular marketing bullshit, nothing to make conclusions on.
and no, you can't do "movie-grade 3D modeling on dated hardware".
Unfortunately, you can, since it has been done in the past. There are movies from five years ago with better CG than current movies. Raster effects take plenty of memory, but modeling and animation are done on derivatives and primatives, which really aren't all that taxing on a CPU. The rendering process is, but who renders on the same box they use to design?
As far as Lightwave, it has NO support for true parametric curves. There is no excuse not to have this. It also has a shitty lighting engine and a slow renderer. There are quite a few very nice 3D apps for mac that don't have these pitfalls, C4D merely being one of them. Personally -- and it's a fairly common sentiment -- I think the combination of FormZ and Electric Image provides the best mid-to-high range platform for 3D design. (Lightwave would be mid-range) There's certainly something to be said for a high-end sub-d app like Maya, but EI has a decent sub-d component in Silo, and sub-d objects should be used sparingly anyway.
ok! ok! ok!? so everyone is happy now? I understand your feeling, after all we don't have the choice, we have to wait? but even if it can be done (I still find Tron's CGI interesting) who would like to model, animate, light, texture, set up a scene on a mac+ ? (assuming it could be done with todays standards)
I think we may be having a problem with semantics. By "dated" I might be refering to an iMac G5, which isn't that old, but is certinly in the performance range as a big workstation from 3 years ago. I'm not really sure who's in the market for a product like the "Boxx." Maybe it would be useful for folks who are designing mathematic simulations.
I think we may be having a problem with semantics. By "dated" I might be refering to an iMac G5, which isn't that old, but is certinly in the performance range as a big workstation from 3 years ago. I'm not really sure who's in the market for a product like the "Boxx." Maybe it would be useful for folks who are designing mathematic simulations.
If I were to lay out schematics for the current G5 dualie when we were still using 68k Quadras, the same could be said...
An eight CPU (dual-cores) workstation may seem like overkill now, but could very well be the standard workstation for DCC five years from now...
I would imagine that an optimized Shake would run pretty sweet on an Apple version of this rig...
As I said, a 64bit backend is ok for rendering? but without a 64bit GUI you won't be able to view your mesh if it is too big, any 32bit app will stall or crash if you load more than a few million polygons while a 64bit GUI allow you to view even a billion polygons without a problem (and I mean openGL view : no nead to render)?
tomas.
Not entirely true, and actually probably a bunch of crap because that is handled by your graphics card, but it also It depends on the App. Maya has gotten over doubly better between 6.5, and 7, and I have had a 30 million polygon model loaded Zbrush2 without a problem. I can also now import Highly detailed millions of polygon converted terrain displacements into Maya 7 that used to crash it out.
Nevertheless. I doubt Apple will take 3D as far as that supreme BOXX system, (which I have to seriously consider now) but would certainly like to see a Dual - Dual core PowerMac with Dual FULL SPEED 16x PCI-E slots sometime soon after the intel Macs are ready. I would also like Plug and play capabilities with over the counter PC graphics cards that use OpenGL, and drivers for Nvidiia Quadro FX graphics cards.
Hell yeah, its the support for real 3D optimized cards and drivers thats really holding back Mac's in 3D, guess what I got to play with today..... a brand new Quadro FX 4500. This thing is an absolute beast, the step up from the Quadro FX 1300 was astounding!! My render times are quartered, and real-time effects power has also increased 4 fold. Of course its nearly the same size as an iBook and costs more than one as well! So I guess you have to argue its not worth it, but if you really need the rendering power, then it would be so good to have one of these in a Dual Dual-core Powermac G5.... (or even 2...)
Shame I dont get to keep it but at least my new dual Opteron workstation is coming soon.
Sure, but in five years it won't cost 12 thousand bucks.
Absolutely correct. If Apple is making such a beast by then, it will start @ US$7,999.00 ;^p
That would be with 'low' RAM & 'low' OpenGL...
BTO Apple Store pricing, maxed out, with LCD displays & LCD tablet, call it US$39,999.00... (better come with a full Apple software toolbox)
Like I said in a different thread, Apple has two targets:
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines/gadgets for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality
What do you know about mentality?
Back when Apple made a decent "Pro" machine that was the majority of their sales. The "Pro Mentality" is more about getting the job done. The Machines were profitable because Apple would sell out of them without having to be hesitant to make them; knowing that Professionals would buy them. That's just not the case today.
Back when Apple made a decent "Pro" machine that was the majority of their sales. The "Pro Mentality" is more about getting the job done. The Machines were profitable because Apple would sell out of them without having to be hesitant to make them; knowing that Professionals would buy them. That's just not the case today.
I guess that would be my suppossed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Indigo UltraExtreme 2 + just come out? Gotta have those new graphics pipelines in your current Hi Impact MegaOnyx 1200, just a board swap (and a good bit of ducats) away...
Okay, I don't want to see Apple go quite that route, but I would like them to make full-tilt balls to the wall workstations with bleeding edge tech... Charge accordingly, if it gets the job down better/faster/smoother/easier, folks will pay extra for it...
I guess that would be my suppossed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Modern IO speeds make the potential for board level upgrades less and less desirable.
By the time they have a finished product, we will have production 4-way Intel Macs. Wasn't the Intel Mac that Jobs used a 4-way system?
No it was the same as the dev kit, an Intel 660 3.6Ghz P4 with hyper-threading. Someone got the idea it was a dual proc system but thats impossible, P4's dont support dual socket, nor was it a dualcore P4, they only go to 3.2Ghz.
I guess that would be my supposed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Indigo UltraExtreme 2 + just come out? Gotta have those new graphics pipelines in your current Hi Impact MegaOnyx 1200, just a board swap (and a good bit of ducats) away...
Okay, I don't want to see Apple go quite that route, but I would like them to make full-tilt balls to the wall workstations with bleeding edge tech... Charge accordingly, if it gets the job down better/faster/smoother/easier, folks will pay extra for it...
Nobody thinks there will ever be real need for another Silicon Graphics the way that people can just put a machine together today that can just about eat anything.
Those gigantic solid desk stations were an awesome spectacle in their day, and to some degree were necessary, but you just don't need that in todays world. They have found a different market for a stand up model of this monster though. Although I don't really care.
Comments
Originally posted by toma
As I said, a 64bit backend is ok for rendering? but without a 64bit GUI you won't be able to view your mesh if it is too big, any 32bit app will stall or crash if you load more than a few million polygons while a 64bit GUI allow you to view even a billion polygons without a problem (and I mean openGL view : no nead to render)?
from http://www.softimage.com/Products/Xs...es/default.asp
Work with Ten Times the Detail
Re-architected with a gigapolygon core that takes full advantage of both multi-processor and multi-core 32-bit and new 64-bit platforms, XSI now handles the tenfold increase in detail demanded by next-generation productions ? in tests handling a billion polygons on 64-bit systems. Critical functions are in many cases up to ten times faster than in previous versions of XSI, and a new memory management system makes it possible to render literally any scene that it is possible to load, regardless of physical memory limits.
First, to my eyes all of that looks like they're talking about the renderer. Where does it say "view"?
Secondly, they are saying *nothing* about the capabilities of the 32-bit and 64-bit renderer, only that the 64-bit has reached X polys in some test (which we have to assume was tailored to have as many polys as possible).
Looks like regular marketing bullshit, nothing to make conclusions on.
Originally posted by toma
and no, you can't do "movie-grade 3D modeling on dated hardware".
Unfortunately, you can, since it has been done in the past. There are movies from five years ago with better CG than current movies. Raster effects take plenty of memory, but modeling and animation are done on derivatives and primatives, which really aren't all that taxing on a CPU. The rendering process is, but who renders on the same box they use to design?
As far as Lightwave, it has NO support for true parametric curves. There is no excuse not to have this. It also has a shitty lighting engine and a slow renderer. There are quite a few very nice 3D apps for mac that don't have these pitfalls, C4D merely being one of them. Personally -- and it's a fairly common sentiment -- I think the combination of FormZ and Electric Image provides the best mid-to-high range platform for 3D design. (Lightwave would be mid-range) There's certainly something to be said for a high-end sub-d app like Maya, but EI has a decent sub-d component in Silo, and sub-d objects should be used sparingly anyway.
toma.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think we may be having a problem with semantics. By "dated" I might be refering to an iMac G5, which isn't that old, but is certinly in the performance range as a big workstation from 3 years ago. I'm not really sure who's in the market for a product like the "Boxx." Maybe it would be useful for folks who are designing mathematic simulations.
If I were to lay out schematics for the current G5 dualie when we were still using 68k Quadras, the same could be said...
An eight CPU (dual-cores) workstation may seem like overkill now, but could very well be the standard workstation for DCC five years from now...
I would imagine that an optimized Shake would run pretty sweet on an Apple version of this rig...
Originally posted by toma
As I said, a 64bit backend is ok for rendering? but without a 64bit GUI you won't be able to view your mesh if it is too big, any 32bit app will stall or crash if you load more than a few million polygons while a 64bit GUI allow you to view even a billion polygons without a problem (and I mean openGL view : no nead to render)?
tomas.
Not entirely true, and actually probably a bunch of crap because that is handled by your graphics card, but it also It depends on the App. Maya has gotten over doubly better between 6.5, and 7, and I have had a 30 million polygon model loaded Zbrush2 without a problem. I can also now import Highly detailed millions of polygon converted terrain displacements into Maya 7 that used to crash it out.
Nevertheless. I doubt Apple will take 3D as far as that supreme BOXX system, (which I have to seriously consider now) but would certainly like to see a Dual - Dual core PowerMac with Dual FULL SPEED 16x PCI-E slots sometime soon after the intel Macs are ready. I would also like Plug and play capabilities with over the counter PC graphics cards that use OpenGL, and drivers for Nvidiia Quadro FX graphics cards.
Shame I dont get to keep it
Originally posted by MacRonin
If I were to lay out schematics for the current G5 dualie when we were still using 68k Quadras, the same could be said...
An eight CPU (dual-cores) workstation may seem like overkill now, but could very well be the standard workstation for DCC five years from now..
Sure, but in five years it won't cost 12 thousand bucks.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Sure, but in five years it won't cost 12 thousand bucks.
We hope.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Sure, but in five years it won't cost 12 thousand bucks.
Absolutely correct. If Apple is making such a beast by then, it will start @ US$7,999.00 ;^p
That would be with 'low' RAM & 'low' OpenGL...
BTO Apple Store pricing, maxed out, with LCD displays & LCD tablet, call it US$39,999.00... (better come with a full Apple software toolbox)
Like I said in a different thread, Apple has two targets:
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines/gadgets for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality
What do you know about mentality?
Back when Apple made a decent "Pro" machine that was the majority of their sales. The "Pro Mentality" is more about getting the job done. The Machines were profitable because Apple would sell out of them without having to be hesitant to make them; knowing that Professionals would buy them. That's just not the case today.
Originally posted by onlooker
What do you know about mentality?
Back when Apple made a decent "Pro" machine that was the majority of their sales. The "Pro Mentality" is more about getting the job done. The Machines were profitable because Apple would sell out of them without having to be hesitant to make them; knowing that Professionals would buy them. That's just not the case today.
I guess that would be my suppossed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Indigo UltraExtreme 2 + just come out? Gotta have those new graphics pipelines in your current Hi Impact MegaOnyx 1200, just a board swap (and a good bit of ducats) away...
Okay, I don't want to see Apple go quite that route, but I would like them to make full-tilt balls to the wall workstations with bleeding edge tech... Charge accordingly, if it gets the job down better/faster/smoother/easier, folks will pay extra for it...
?It's by no means a finished product. They're still some work being done on the drivers,? Caracappa said
By the time they have a finished product, we will have production 4-way Intel Macs. Wasn't the Intel Mac that Jobs used a 4-way system?
Originally posted by MacRonin
I guess that would be my suppossed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Modern IO speeds make the potential for board level upgrades less and less desirable.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
By the time they have a finished product, we will have production 4-way Intel Macs. Wasn't the Intel Mac that Jobs used a 4-way system?
No it was the same as the dev kit, an Intel 660 3.6Ghz P4 with hyper-threading. Someone got the idea it was a dual proc system but thats impossible, P4's dont support dual socket, nor was it a dualcore P4, they only go to 3.2Ghz.
Originally posted by MacRonin
I guess that would be my supposed mental imbalance peeking through...
;^p
Remember Silicon Graphics back in the old days? When they would come out with a new machine you could buy that, or pay to upgrade certain systems in your current box...
Indigo UltraExtreme 2 + just come out? Gotta have those new graphics pipelines in your current Hi Impact MegaOnyx 1200, just a board swap (and a good bit of ducats) away...
Okay, I don't want to see Apple go quite that route, but I would like them to make full-tilt balls to the wall workstations with bleeding edge tech... Charge accordingly, if it gets the job down better/faster/smoother/easier, folks will pay extra for it...
Nobody thinks there will ever be real need for another Silicon Graphics the way that people can just put a machine together today that can just about eat anything.
Those gigantic solid desk stations were an awesome spectacle in their day, and to some degree were necessary, but you just don't need that in todays world. They have found a different market for a stand up model of this monster though. Although I don't really care.