cgWerks

9secondkox2 said:

The Mac Studio serves the same purpose that the old iMac Pro did - satiate customers who cannot wait for the Mac Pro.

... Once the Mac Pro is released, we may not see an update to the Mac Studio - or not many updates - similar to the OG iMac Pro. It serves a purpose but does not fit neatly into Apple's product roadmap.

All signs pointed to a new iMac Pro or at least redesigned upgrade to the iMac 5k, and that is most likely the market Apple is aiming for, but cannot do it right just yet. ...

Hmm, I think (and hope) you're wrong on this. While I hope they do add some form of more powerful iMac to the mix, I think Apple's product line finally makes sense. Having a Mac mini, a Mac Studio, and then a Mac Pro is finally a reasonable product lineup. I see no reason they wouldn't just maintain this going forward with an M2, M3, etc. upgrade each year like the iPhones.

The iMac future is less certain to me, but it would make sense to eventually either give the screen-size as a BTO option, and/or add more powerful chips. Certainly, having an iMac Pro to go with the iMac makes sense. The question will be whether that will be a 'Pro' in the sense of MacBook vs MBP (ie. Pro/Max chips), or 'Pro' in the sense of the previous iMac Pro, having similar/near Mac Pro performance. My hunch is that the stopgap here isn't the Studio, but the previous iMac Pro.

9secondkox2 said:
The Studio is literally a bigger Mac Mini. So the Studio actually did not need to exist at all.  The Studio display, sure. The Studio Mac? Nah.
...
The iMac is a different device as it is all-inclusive, which is more desirable for many reasons. The Studio may fill a niche for those who just want things seperate, but it's no replacement for the iMac.

There has been a huge gap, though, between the mini and Mac Pro. So, the Studio is *finally* a gap-filler. It makes perfect sense.

I hope you get your iMac Pro. I see a market for that as well, and I don't think Apple should be deciding not to fill market holes just because a model isn't popular enough (cf. my rants on the iPhone mini!). The product lineup needs to make sense, not just sales figures. The Mac Pro needs to exist as well, even if many aren't sold.

So, I totally support your idea an iMac Pro of some form needs to exist, even if one can buy a Studio or Mac Pro with a separate display. Having *just* the 24" iMac doesn't make much sense. But, they need BOTH, not one or the other. If one has to give (a choice I don't think that needs to be), I'd argue the Studio is more important than the pro iMac, because at least you *CAN* do the box + display. If you only get the iMac option, and then then it can't perform enough, cool itself properly, or have features like video input, then a whole range of users are totally screwed with the Mac Pro being the only option (as it has been for decades!).

9secondkox2 said:
It satisfies a special need to have high-performing Apple Silicon while avoiding serious criticism by being a new product and not having to live up to expectations that a Mac Pro or iMac would need to live up to.  

It is a big special need though... and a primary reason so much of the Apple community has been screaming for the xMac. If you any kind of professional, or serious hobbyist work, there has been a major problem with Apple's lineup. Most of us can't afford a Mac Pro, especially in a serious enough configuration to make a difference. The laptops and iMacs have barely been a choice either. The new 16" MBP kind of fit (finally) if we want something that big primarily for a desktop. The iMac Pro was close, but kind of pricy, and still an edge-case in terms of cooling/longevity from what I understand.

Yes, it is a new product to the lineup, but one that has been seriously needed. I'm not arguing there shouldn't ALSO be a pro iMac, but I don't think anyone is expecting the Studio to be the new Mac Pro. We all know a Mac Pro is coming (probably at similar pricing to current) if we need that kind of extreme performance.

rezwits said:
I liked your response.  I guess I just saw the term "stopgap" with a negative connotation.  Where as in my mind this is more like a puzzle piece fitting right in.  Mac Mini -> Mac Studio -> Mac Pro
...
The "Color Ways" I was referring to were the (iDevices) iPhone, iPad Air, iMac, and the possible future M2 MacBook (Air) (or iBooks if renamed sweetly) in a color array.

The higher cost models are mostly likely gonna be one metal or the other, except maybe the laptops, i.e. Silver or Space...

Same here. Didn't Apple even admit the iMac Pro *was* a stopgap effort? I'm arguing for *both* as I think both have good customer-bases, even if an iMac Pro is rather easily replaced in end-output by a Mac Studio + display. I'm a form-factor/aesthetics kind of person though, so just like I'm not happy with a MBP + display + docks in place of a good desktop, I understand the people wanting a more powerful iMac as well. I think Apple should *reasonably* cover the product line, just like they should with phones (but might not).

UrbaneLegend said:

Well I started out on Imagine 3d on the Amiga then Lightwave, then C4D. I now use Houdini and a bit of Blender. So who's dating who?

Apple has a huge team of in house developers who have assisted greatly in porting Redshift, Octane and now Blender's Cycles to Metal. ... BTW, I highly recommend Blender it has blossomed into an incredible App and Apple is playing a big part in its development. Blender is going places and it pays to know it as so many more studios are using it now. 

... As you're interested in Archviz, I would check out Twinmotion, Enscape also Unity and Unreal Engine as I know for a fact many of the biggest architect studios in the world are moving towards real-time rendering solutions because they fit so well for highly stylised and clean renders but you can also iterate so much quicker. The Mac Studio can access a huge amount of VRAM and if you make use of that in your Archviz work it could be quite the USP. To get an nVidia GPU with similar memory you'd have to spend more than a Mac Studio just for the GPU! There's definitely areas of opportunity for Apple Silicon Macs in 3D. ...

Heh, a bit more history, if interested ...
~~~
Yeah, my first computer was an Atari 600XL with a cassette 'drive' (go out and play basketball while your app/game was loading up!). I learned years earlier on TRS-80s and was going to get the CoCo, but a cassette of apps a friend had given me got stolen, and a local store had a 'going out of business sale' on the Atari stuff. I con't think I had any CAD on there, but some art apps. I upgraded to a 1040ST because it did have some DTP/CAD/Illustration apps, and that's where I also got my first taste of crude 3D stuff and was hooked. (I just didn't get to professionally use any of it for years.)

When I did, the ID firm I was working with was sub-contracting with an Architectural firm using AutoCAD/3DS Max. It quickly became apparent that how we were designing/building our industrial housing project wasn't going to work with that level of software tech. I went on the hunt for something that could match the workflow, and found Tim Olsen *just* starting 3D solids into Ashlar's CAD apps (another ID firm - Fitch Richardson Smith, a client of mine from  IT consulting - had introduced me to Ashlar Vellum, and I'd been impressed by the UI). I called Ashlar and explained our needs. The sales rep (bless him!) had said that the current product couldn't do what we needed (it was just 'simulated' 3D... line-drawing in 3D space, but everything had to be manually drafted, etc.), but did I have a few minutes to talk to one of the devs? I sure did, and a bit later, I got a call from Tim Olsen, who graciously spent like an hour or more on the phone with me trying to understand our needs. It was a fit, so we bought the product, and I started using it even before it was officially released to the beta team a couple weeks later! ViaCAD/SharkCAD is the current product-line, and Tim is still heading it.

One of the architects at the above firm was quite interested in what I was doing on the CAD front, and was showing me 3DS Max. He was frustrated by some aspects of it (early days), and was wondering about EIAS. He had one of their slick marketing kits in his desk and a demo tape we watched. I was pretty blown away, and we talked the owner of the ID firm into investing in it (if I recall, it was something like $6500.) I ended up just diving into those two apps for several years and doing some revolutionary work at the time. We had potential investors coming in from all over and they couldn't believe what we were doing in terms of CAD/3D. Unfortunately, as things sometimes go in the real-world of venture capital, owners with dreams/egos, etc. I couldn't come to a longer-term employment contract and the project eventually went under (a few years after I left). Really sad, as it was truly a game-changer in building technology, which I've only yet seem partial close concepts in the building industry. But, my dream-career kind of vaporized and I went back to IT. I'm now attempting to make a jump, once again, back into something I love... but it hasn't been an easy road!
~~~

I'm really glad to hear Apple is getting involved. I wonder if it is just that line of technology, or a bunch of other companies? I know Vectorworks is doing quite well, and being prominently featured. I'd so love to see Apple really take that industry by storm... not just because I'm an Apple fan, but because so much of the software/tech is just awful. I learned Revit to get back into the area (as I was told that was the package to learn), and as powerful as it is... it was a painful experience. Horrid UI in just about every regard. But, that's the current industry standard (at least among firms who have moved on from AutoCAD).

Yes, thanks for the Blender -> Unreal Engine list. I have those apps/renderers marked out to look into. So much to learn! Absolutely, learning Blender won't hurt even if I ultimately end up using another app for one reason or another. The big question these days seems to be whether one can stay in-app, using default/plugin- renderers, or whether to use a dedicated 3D/rendering pipeline apart from the CAD app. Much tougher decision than it used to be, anyway.

Thanks for the take on the VRAM and Apple Silicon. Until you pointed that out, I hadn't appreciated that nuance about how particular 3D workflows would benefit from that vs AMD/nVIdia cards. That seems to be a key point readers of this thread interested in 3D/CAD should pick up on!

cornchip said:

I don’t use blender that much anymore, but this is awesome news. Man, seems like people have been talking about blender three since I started using it back in 05! 

Yeah, I need to install it and start learning. I mostly ignored Blender back when I was doing that kind of work, because it was didn't have a ton of features and the interface was poor, etc. I simply had access to way superior stuff, and Blender was the 'poor person's' 3D app.

Now, it seems Blender is nearly (or more) capable than most 3D packages on the market, even if it has various shortcomings in different ways (which I admit I don't even understand any longer). It is kind of hard to ignore, especially since I can just download it and get going.

It also makes me concerned about the future of certain packages. For example, my 'stomping ground' Electric Image  Animation System is working on a new version (and has been for quite some time now... will it get released this year?!), but hitting the current market with competition like Blender for free is going to be way harder than the past when competing against a few other multi-thousand-dollar heavyweights. EIAS's claim-to-fame was always having a beautiful renderer that could handle seemingly impossibly huge scenes and still render fast. Maybe that's still a differentiator? But, with all these apps and plugin renderers, I just don't know any more.

But, I don't think I can ignore Blender any longer.

fastasleep said:

loopless said:

Apple dropping support for openCL is the bad old Apple who wants to do their own thing and screw industry standards. Intel has developed a new standard for GPU computing called OneAPI which allows developers to write one code base and target all types of GPUs and FPGAs. Apple should swallow their pride and get on board.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that. 🙄

Yeah, though I understand the sentiment. I like it when Apple comes up with great, new beneficial technologies. But it sucks for many of us when they cut out technologies 99% of the world is still using. OpenGL/CL pretty much is the 3D/CAD world and more (crypto-mining, for example). I hope Apple pulls enough developers to ALSO add Metal support, but I doubt the industry is going to go, 'hey, look how great Apple's Metal is, let's all convert to Metal.' Which basically means Apple users begging companies for Apple support again (something we enjoyed not *having* to do for a couple decades).

melgross said:
Fusion 360 has been on the iPad now for several years. It began simply, but it now a orrery sophisticated app. It’s being, or already has been ported to the M series Mac. Cad developers have been stating the they are very interesting in the new machines. Go to the site Architosh.

Oh, that's interesting re: Fusion 360. I used to follow Architosh closely. I need to start doing that again.
I'm really hoping Spatial gets ASIS running native, as that is the engine of the CAD app I love. I think I saw a post that it runs on the M1 on Rosetta2 though, so at least it isn't impossible to run until they do.

Yeah, I'm hoping it is just software. As, you point out, some seem quite impressed. Others, workflows seem unworkable (I saw a more organic-modeling attempt on a YouTube video on a MBP Max 32-core that was not useable. Can't remember the app now.)