The Mac FAQ

1565758596062»

Comments

  • inquireinquire Posts: 1,531

    All right. Thanks again. Good to know. I may take me a bit of time to learn, but I am learning.

  • Rod Wise DriggoRod Wise Driggo Posts: 1,339

    @Platnumk

    Well then bummer on my side as I get the error also for GPU and Intel Graphics. Damn!

  • Totte said:

    If you compile the Kernel for CPU, not GPU, does it work then?

    That's how you fix the problem, indeed. When moving to a new Mac using Catalina a few months ago, only CPU could handle dForce.

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    alesiaschumann said:

    Totte said:

    If you compile the Kernel for CPU, not GPU, does it work then?

    That's how you fix the problem, indeed. When moving to a new Mac using Catalina a few months ago, only CPU could handle dForce.

    A little depending on what CPU you have, I had issues in the beginning of dForce with Xeon CPUs but that was later solved.  

  • Rod Wise DriggoRod Wise Driggo Posts: 1,339

    Yeah, on my Mac I could also only dForce on CPU. Was happy with it. But now thanks to that damn security update this option is gone.

    @Totte, @alesiaschumann: Can you still use dForce on CPU for Catalina with the security update 2021-002?

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    Rod Wise Driggo said:

    Yeah, on my Mac I could also only dForce on CPU. Was happy with it. But now thanks to that damn security update this option is gone.

    @Totte, @alesiaschumann: Can you still use dForce on CPU for Catalina with the security update 2021-002?

    Been staying away from 10.15 since it arrived, still on 10.14 or 10.13 on all machines except the M1 mini running 11.x.  
     

  • Rod Wise DriggoRod Wise Driggo Posts: 1,339

    Totte said:

    Rod Wise Driggo said:

    Yeah, on my Mac I could also only dForce on CPU. Was happy with it. But now thanks to that damn security update this option is gone.

    @Totte, @alesiaschumann: Can you still use dForce on CPU for Catalina with the security update 2021-002?

    Been staying away from 10.15 since it arrived, still on 10.14 or 10.13 on all machines except the M1 mini running 11.x.  
     

    Apparently a wise decision.

  • alesiaschumannalesiaschumann Posts: 93
    edited May 14

    Rod Wise Driggo said:

    Yeah, on my Mac I could also only dForce on CPU. Was happy with it. But now thanks to that damn security update this option is gone.

    @Totte, @alesiaschumann: Can you still use dForce on CPU for Catalina with the security update 2021-002?

    I haven't installed it, so I can't speak from experience.

    Also pasting a warning from a TidBits article:

    "Although many people have updated without problems, it appears that Security Update 2021-002 for Catalina breaks OpenCL, which can break graphics apps [...] We recommend holding off on these updates until more is known."

     

    Post edited by alesiaschumann on
  • What is the status of things now? I see that Apple has pre-announced the Monterrey version of MacOS.

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    Nothing new what I know off, but I guess next mac OS will be the same state as 11.x, DS needs to be fixed for it, and I know work is in progress.

  • I honestly have to wonder what's going on with this. Some developers of apps that use graphics technologies are pretty quick to support when new Apple stuff comes out. Yet, DAZ Studio keeps us behind.

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    alesiaschumann said:

    I honestly have to wonder what's going on with this. Some developers of apps that use graphics technologies are pretty quick to support when new Apple stuff comes out. Yet, DAZ Studio keeps us behind.

    DAZ Studio is built using "Qt", and exactly Qt version 4.8, to be able to use one code base for Macs and Windows. 
    Qt 4.8 is the issue, They need to update DA Studio for Qt 5, which is a monster work.

    Those who ported graphics apps to Big Sur are either macOS only and not built using something like Qt and built using Metal instasd of OpenGL etc etc,  or a big companies with 100 programmers who charge the user $50 -  $100 / month  for using it. Who spent 12 months working on it. I think DAZ has three programmers on Studio, great ones, but it will take time.

     

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413
    edited June 8

    I expect that the Poser folk are in the "Didn't use Qt" camp, or if they did, kept it updated more frequently and/or efficiently.

    -- Walt

    Post edited by wsterdan on
  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413
    edited June 8

    I'm actually hoping that they're not porting and pausing at Qt5 but instead are porting to Qt6 to possibly give a boost to the Mac people. From their notes:

    So while Qt 5 relied on OpenGL for hardware-accelerated graphics, the picture completely changes with Qt 6. All of our 3D graphics in Qt Quick is now built on top of a new abstraction layer for 3D graphics called RHI (Rendering Hardware Interface). RHI makes it possible for Qt to use the native 3D graphics API of the underlying OS/platform. So Qt Quick will now use Direct3D on Windows and Metal on macOS by default

    I hosnestly haven't looked into this in any real depsth. What differences would a Mac user see if Qt used Metal on macOS directly? Anything significant? I expect that without creating a rendering engine that used Metal shaders, not much. Would OpenGL previews  or Filament renders go any faster? Would Qt access to the Metal API allow DAZ to possibly have Metal forward some of the 3D calculations to the built-in GPUs for anthing? I konw 3DL and OpenGL don't really use them, but if I remmeber correctly OpenGL might a litlte just for screen redraws? If nothing else, would the viewport be a little quicker when setting up scenes?

    Again, no idea what usign Metal automatically would do for Mac users, if anyone has any thoughts I'd be interested in hearing them.

    -- Walt Sterdan

    Post edited by wsterdan on
  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    I don't know if it's Qt 5 or 6, but one thing with Qt 5 is the depracation of Qt Script, which would kill all product for Studiio that are using Scripts, and as thats deprecated in Qt 5 it's probably gone in Qt 6.
    Changing Qt version isn't an easy task, as every plugin will have to be changed, many will never get to new DS as the developers are no longer with us, so it's not an easy ride.

    Filament on macOS is built using Metal, that's why you cannot use filament in Qt 4 on macOS as it requires Qt 5 underpinnings.

    Another thing regardning Qt that also is something that DAZ has to consider in the licensing model. Today scripts and plugins do not have to pay license fees for Qt, newer versions of Qt has a more rigid lincense policy if you read  about it, which could make scripts and plugins much more expensive, same with Studio itself, if the new owners of Qt decided they want $100/seat/year in runtime licenses plus $10/year for every plugin and $20 / yeasr for every plugin  used.


     

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413

    Thanks for your thoughts, it's much appreciated.

    With things like Qt Script being depracated and the possibilities of horrific licensing, one wonders if it might be better to move away from Qt rather than go through the incredible hassle of updating to beast that you describe as Qt 5, or Qt 6 to be more current.

    Also not a minor endeavor.

    Again, thanks for your feedback. I hope we'll something positive come out for us in the next few months.

    -- Walt

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    The thing is that as Studio is built on Qt, moving away would be like removing all metal and concrete from the Empire State Building....

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413

    I thought Qt was just the GUI, is it actually doing more than cross-platform user interface? If not, I think it would be more like replacing the Empire State Building's electrical and plumbing... wink

    The amount of work involved in moving from Qt 4 to Qt 5 or 6 sounds huge; if you're alrady replacing most of it, I just wonder how much more replacing would be needed. Again, I'm assuming it's mainly handling just the GUI, if it's actually doing a lot more? I don't mean to sound like I'm minimalizing the effort required either way, but I do wonder that if you're already undertaking a huge migration project AND you might be looking at huge, potential licensing issues, then alternatives might not be as overwhelming as they might seem at first.

    Disclaimer: I honeslty have no idea either way, the opinions and questions above are my uninformed own as no rational or better-informed person would want to be involved.

    Walt Sterdan

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    Qt is everything when you use Qt, its the layer between your code and the operative system underneath. Everything you do from  reading files to rendering gui goes through Qt to avoid having to deal with the huge differences between OS:es-

    The work is to change calls to Qt Stuff that is old, replacing with calls to new, and that usually involves rewriting tons of code as your code rely on how Qt handle things, and testing, testing every change to see that it doesn't wrecj havoc somehwere down the line.

    As all code is written for Qt, swapping it out is starting at line one, as you still want it to be cross platform. I think changing Qt version the way it's most probably done is the right way. The reason it wasn't done before is most probably because it was not needed, and those resources was spent on giving us Iray and dForce to mention a few huge things.

    The other alternative is much less fun, which many companies have done, they drop macOS support as it cost too much to keep up as Apple is quite violent in architecture changes. I've lived through 68k -> PPC, Mac OS -> Mac OS X, PPC -> Intel and now Intel -> Arm, but I know how many clients who have decided to drop stuff when Apple change that much. 


     

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413
    edited June 8

    Having mostly only dabbled in coding from Apple UCSD to just before Swift (less and less as the years progressed and "free" time became rare) I can certainly understand if DAZ decided that it was just no longer profitable to support Mac users, not if they're going to lose money. It's just good business sense. The proportion of Mac users is said to be very small, so that makes even more sense. I know that having spent enough here over the years to buy a small house, I would miss having DAZ updates, and probably use the last, functioning Mac version while converting as much of my library as I can or need to Blender, Poser, C4D, etc.

    Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and insight.

    -- Walt

    Post edited by wsterdan on
  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 3,413

    Totte said:

    Qt is everything when you use Qt, its the layer between your code and the operative system underneath. Everything you do from  reading files to rendering gui goes through Qt to avoid having to deal with the huge differences between OS:es-

    The work is to change calls to Qt Stuff that is old, replacing with calls to new, and that usually involves rewriting tons of code as your code rely on how Qt handle things, and testing, testing every change to see that it doesn't wrecj havoc somehwere down the line.

    As all code is written for Qt, swapping it out is starting at line one, as you still want it to be cross platform. I think changing Qt version the way it's most probably done is the right way. The reason it wasn't done before is most probably because it was not needed, and those resources was spent on giving us Iray and dForce to mention a few huge things.

    The other alternative is much less fun, which many companies have done, they drop macOS support as it cost too much to keep up as Apple is quite violent in architecture changes. I've lived through 68k -> PPC, Mac OS -> Mac OS X, PPC -> Intel and now Intel -> Arm, but I know how many clients who have decided to drop stuff when Apple change that much. 


     

    IIRC there was some mention a long time ago that the Qt4 implementation being used supports a "compatability layer" that can handle some Qt3 calls that are still in use in Studio - and Qt5 does not have the Qt3 compatability. So the upgrade would be a double upgrade, cleaning out Qt3 and then updating to Qt5. And the assortment of encrypted scripts and plugins written by deceased PAs will all break with the only way forward on them being recreating them from scratch.

  • inquireinquire Posts: 1,531

    wsterdan said:

    I expect that the Poser folk are in the "Didn't use Qt" camp, or if they did, kept it updated more frequently and/or efficiently.

    -- Walt

    Well, I think that Poser 12 runs on Rapsody 2, in other words on an emulation of the earlier Mac OS (maybe Catalina?), not on Big Sur.

  • inquireinquire Posts: 1,531

    Totte said:

    I don't know if it's Qt 5 or 6, but one thing with Qt 5 is the depracation of Qt Script, which would kill all product for Studiio that are using Scripts, and as thats deprecated in Qt 5 it's probably gone in Qt 6.
    Changing Qt version isn't an easy task, as every plugin will have to be changed, many will never get to new DS as the developers are no longer with us, so it's not an easy ride.

    Filament on macOS is built using Metal, that's why you cannot use filament in Qt 4 on macOS as it requires Qt 5 underpinnings.

    Another thing regardning Qt that also is something that DAZ has to consider in the licensing model. Today scripts and plugins do not have to pay license fees for Qt, newer versions of Qt has a more rigid lincense policy if you read  about it, which could make scripts and plugins much more expensive, same with Studio itself, if the new owners of Qt decided they want $100/seat/year in runtime licenses plus $10/year for every plugin and $20 / yeasr for every plugin  used.

    Ouch! But, of course, this would also be the case for Windows users, would it not? Not only the possibility of more fees, but Windows users would also lose their scripts and plugins unless those were rewritten. Am I correct in thinking this?

  • inquireinquire Posts: 1,531

    Totte said:

    Qt is everything when you use Qt, its the layer between your code and the operative system underneath. Everything you do from  reading files to rendering gui goes through Qt to avoid having to deal with the huge differences between OS:es-

    The work is to change calls to Qt Stuff that is old, replacing with calls to new, and that usually involves rewriting tons of code as your code rely on how Qt handle things, and testing, testing every change to see that it doesn't wrecj havoc somehwere down the line.

    As all code is written for Qt, swapping it out is starting at line one, as you still want it to be cross platform. I think changing Qt version the way it's most probably done is the right way. The reason it wasn't done before is most probably because it was not needed, and those resources was spent on giving us Iray and dForce to mention a few huge things.

    The other alternative is much less fun, which many companies have done, they drop macOS support as it cost too much to keep up as Apple is quite violent in architecture changes. I've lived through 68k -> PPC, Mac OS -> Mac OS X, PPC -> Intel and now Intel -> Arm, but I know how many clients who have decided to drop stuff when Apple change that much.
     

    Individual users probably wouldn't benefit by switching to Windows, if DAZ keeps using Qt. If DAZ drops writing for the Mac OS, they'd lose their Mac customers. We don't know how large a number that would be. Then, individuals might switch to Windows, but I don't think I would. Am I interpreting this correctly?

  • TotteTotte Posts: 11,915

    inquire said:

    Totte said:

    Qt is everything when you use Qt, its the layer between your code and the operative system underneath. Everything you do from  reading files to rendering gui goes through Qt to avoid having to deal with the huge differences between OS:es-

    The work is to change calls to Qt Stuff that is old, replacing with calls to new, and that usually involves rewriting tons of code as your code rely on how Qt handle things, and testing, testing every change to see that it doesn't wrecj havoc somehwere down the line.

    As all code is written for Qt, swapping it out is starting at line one, as you still want it to be cross platform. I think changing Qt version the way it's most probably done is the right way. The reason it wasn't done before is most probably because it was not needed, and those resources was spent on giving us Iray and dForce to mention a few huge things.

    The other alternative is much less fun, which many companies have done, they drop macOS support as it cost too much to keep up as Apple is quite violent in architecture changes. I've lived through 68k -> PPC, Mac OS -> Mac OS X, PPC -> Intel and now Intel -> Arm, but I know how many clients who have decided to drop stuff when Apple change that much.
     

    Individual users probably wouldn't benefit by switching to Windows, if DAZ keeps using Qt. If DAZ drops writing for the Mac OS, they'd lose their Mac customers. We don't know how large a number that would be. Then, individuals might switch to Windows, but I don't think I would. Am I interpreting this correctly?

    You're right, but as far as I know DAZ is not dropping mac support, just taking time to get it right. 
     

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413
    edited June 9

    inquire said:

    Well, I think that Poser 12 runs on Rapsody 2, in other words on an emulation of the earlier Mac OS (maybe Catalina?), not on Big Sur.

    It's been running under Big Sur and on m1 chips since January 29 according to their release page, I assume using Rosetta 2:

    "Mac users can also access the software on Mac's most up-to-date operating systems, Weinberg said, adding Poser runs on both the Catalina OS and Big Sur OS, as well as with Apple's new M1 chip."

    -- Walt Sterdan

    Post edited by wsterdan on
  • globallyglobally Posts: 29

    Well, here's still hoping for daz Mac compatibility.

    I recently bought my first ever windows machine to speed up my renders and it really did work. My current 10 year old iMac used to take a couple of hours and now the same render takes minutes. Great huh? Well no. The windows machine is soooooo unstable. I've only had it a couple of weeks and I've had so many daz crashes and even a couple of complete lock ups. Not sure if this is the same for everyone, but I do see windows users complaining about crashes.

    my old old iMac never has issues like this. I could throw anything I wanted at it, huge geometry numbers, dforce explosions etc and yeah it might slow down, but it never locked up on me. I now do all my scene set up on the 10 year old Mac and then swap the scene to the windows machine for the render alone. Oh and it'll still crash just starting the render sometimes. What a joke.

     

    and now we have moved on to yet another macOS release that isn't supported so here's hoping that "daz is working on it" finally comes through. I've been hearing that for too long.

    im not looking for comparable render speeds, just a modern Mac that can run daz. Looking forward to seeing what the higher end iMac looks like later this year and fingers crossed that daz compatibility doesn't delay my purchase.

     

    not really a question, just a rant on how terrible windows seems to be and how slow daz is to release.

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 1,887
    edited June 10

    globally said:

    Well, here's still hoping for daz Mac compatibility.

    I recently bought my first ever windows machine to speed up my renders and it really did work. My current 10 year old iMac used to take a couple of hours and now the same render takes minutes. Great huh? Well no. The windows machine is soooooo unstable. I've only had it a couple of weeks and I've had so many daz crashes and even a couple of complete lock ups. Not sure if this is the same for everyone, but I do see windows users complaining about crashes.

    my old old iMac never has issues like this. I could throw anything I wanted at it, huge geometry numbers, dforce explosions etc and yeah it might slow down, but it never locked up on me. I now do all my scene set up on the 10 year old Mac and then swap the scene to the windows machine for the render alone. Oh and it'll still crash just starting the render sometimes. What a joke.

     

    and now we have moved on to yet another macOS release that isn't supported so here's hoping that "daz is working on it" finally comes through. I've been hearing that for too long.

    im not looking for comparable render speeds, just a modern Mac that can run daz. Looking forward to seeing what the higher end iMac looks like later this year and fingers crossed that daz compatibility doesn't delay my purchase.

     

    not really a question, just a rant on how terrible windows seems to be and how slow daz is to release.

    Copying what I wrote on another thread; We must also consider that the Qt update is not going to be the only change in DS 5, truth be told, it would be quite disappointing if that was all that was changed.

    We have no knowledge about what they have been planning for DS 5 but, the fact that we are already at minor revision 15 and the mimimum SDK release is already 9 years old, the changes may very well be something they have been working for several years with.

     

    Between MAC and Windows (PC), there has always been a fundamental difference between the two platforms. MAC is controlled by Apple, which means fewer options and higher prices, but better compatibility, whereas PC gave the control and choices to the user, which means there are billions of possible combinations to build a system and nobody to control the compatibility of the random components with other random components and programs.
    PC/Windows environment is about taking control of your computer and it is very stable when you do know how to do it, but if you are relying on someone else doing it for you (prebuilt systems), with default installation methods for whatever, it can also get very troublesome. The latest versions of Windows have made it more non techie/newbee-friendly, but at the same time it has pushed people over to Linux because they don't want the control imposed on them by decicions made by MS.

    For me, DS is the last program keeping me in Windows (W7).

    Post edited by PerttiA on
  • inquireinquire Posts: 1,531

    wsterdan said:

    inquire said:

    Well, I think that Poser 12 runs on Rapsody 2, in other words on an emulation of the earlier Mac OS (maybe Catalina?), not on Big Sur.

     

    Checking with a friend of mine who's written computer code professionally, and who owns Poser 12, he said it runs under Rosetta 2 on the M1. So, I guess it's called Rosetta 2, not Rapsody 2. By the time the Poser people have a native Mac OS v. 11 or 12, or whatever, it's likely to be time for Poser 13, and they'll charge again for the update. 

    Remembering back to what happened to me with Rosetta (1), I had bought Final Cut, and it ran on the then current Mac OS. Then, it ran with Rosetta. When Apple dropped Rosetta, I imagened Final Cut would still run because it was an Apple generated app. Nope, Mail and Safari, etc., did, of course, run on the next version of the Mac OS, but Final Cut would not. I'd have to buy a whole new version of Final Cut, and the price was so high, I did not buy it.

    It's been running under Big Sur and on m1 chips since January 29 according to their release page, I assume using Rosetta 2:

    "Mac users can also access the software on Mac's most up-to-date operating systems, Weinberg said, adding Poser runs on both the Catalina OS and Big Sur OS, as well as with Apple's new M1 chip."

    -- Walt Sterdan

  • wsterdanwsterdan Posts: 1,413

    Yeah, Rhapsody was a looong ago. They're a lot better with their own software updates these days, I think everything they make was m1-optmized almost right from day one.

    -- Walt Sterdan

Sign In or Register to comment.