Mac OSX v3 prototype available now
 1  …  62-81  82-101  102-121  122-141  142-161  162-180

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.102 In reply to 4737.101 
Hi Vincent - at the moment you need a v2 license to use the OSX beta. That's the same as with the v3 beta release.

But if you have v1 you can purchase the v2 upgrade license instead of the v2 full version license to get v2.

Within another month or so I'll release some kind of public trial version of the OSX version that won't require any license at all, so if you can wait for a little bit you'll be able to use that version to test it without purchasing anything new at all.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.103 
How is the stability of the OSX version?

Is anyone seeing any crash problems at all?

So far I have had 0 reports of crashes for this version, I just want to make sure that's actually the case and not just because nobody is using it extensively yet.


Also if you've previously been using the regular Win version on Parallels or VMWare, how does the performance of the 3D display compare between that and the new version?


- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  dooki
4737.104 In reply to 4737.1 
Hey Michael,

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Just downloaded it and played a little. Works smoothly as the PC version!

Info:

Macbook Pro 2.4 ghz
OS X 10.6.8

-Dooki
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Martin (MARTIN3D)
4737.105 In reply to 4737.103 
I have no complicated models like the motorcycle Frenchy Pilou shows in post 12 of this thread and I have never used MoI natively under Windows.
All I can say that I feel no difference in UI performance between using MoI in OS X and in VMWare.

One thing that takes "forever" though in VMWare and OS X are Sweep operations.
Does the following give a result under Windows?
A 0,5 mm diameter circle sweeped around a 1000 mm long helix with 5 mm diameter and 1000 turns calculates several minutes but gives no result in MoI VMWare and MoI OS X.

When I shorten the helix to 100 mm it takes about 50 seconds of calculation before the result is displayed.


Am I asking too much from Moi by sweeping a circle around 1000 turns?
Attachments:

Image Attachments:
Size: 325.6 KB, Downloaded: 32 times, Dimensions: 1464x910px
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.106 In reply to 4737.105 
Hi Martin,

> Am I asking too much from Moi by sweeping a circle
> around 1000 turns?

Actually yes - by the standards of NURBS modeling which creates a truly curved surface, that kind of 1000 turn tube is extremely complex.

One thing you can do though with such complex surfaces is to change the display density to be rougher - see this previous post on the settings to adjust:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=4558.4

The default settings for MoI generate a pretty high density display mesh, which for simple models makes the model look really nice but for a really high complexity tightly curved surface like you're trying to create the default settings will generate a quite high density display mesh.

The kind of complex single surface that you're trying to create in this case is kind of unusual in NURBS modeling - if you're trying to do something like that as a render effect you probably want to do that in a rendering program which may have some method of generating a pretty low polygon result along that curve instead of the kind of highly accurate result that NURBS modeling is focused on.

Basically when you are building NURBS models, the system is tuned towards high accuracy in all operations - the surface that you are generating there is refined until it is within 0.001 units of the ideal result. That kind of accuracy helps a lot for making precise and manufacturable models, but in a case like this it also creates a result with heavy data in it.

What kind of end result model are you trying to build that has a 1000 turn coil like that in it?

It is possible that MoI is not the right tool for the particular job that you're trying to do - if you want something that has a 1000 turn coil in it and you don't care about the actual accuracy of it a polygon modeling tool is probably a better tool for that case.

If you adjust the display density it may help some, but that particular sweep example is a pretty unusual case, in more regular types of sweeps you shouldn't see such a long delay.

- Michael

EDITED: 27 Nov 2011 by MICHAEL GIBSON

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.107 In reply to 4737.105 
Hi Martin, so for something like that you'll probably need to do the 100 turn sweep and then piece 10 of those together rather than trying to do the 1000 turn sweep all in one go.

The way sweep works is that it starts out by trying to construct the sweep using only a few sample points and then tests the accuracy of the result. If the result is out of tolerance more sections are put in and the process repeats.

With a 1000 turn helix, you're looking quite a high level of iterative refinement needed until it will hit the 0.001 unit accuracy level.

Sweep does not have any way itself to recognize that there is a type of repeating pattern here, but you can take advantage of the repetitive nature of the pattern yourself by constructing a smaller sweep and then arraying it rather than doing one huge sweep.

But anyway because the way sweep works is by refinement of a fitted surface until a high accuracy level is obtained, it just does not work very well to do something with that kind of complexity in just one single surface sweep.

A polygon modeling program would have a much easier time of it because they generally don't care about hitting a specific accuracy level at all, so they'll do things like just move forward by some fixed increment along the curve and not even test accuracy of what that produces.

Sometimes in a case like this the NURBS modeling focus on generating accurate results can have some side effects, like in this case needing to do a smaller section that gets copied rather than doing it all in one go.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Martin (MARTIN3D)
4737.108 In reply to 4737.107 
Thanks Michael for the detailed answer and insight. I'm a 3D beginner but I see.

I tried to model an 1 meter long threaded rod. Because it didn't work I used a simpler example.

Changing the Mesh angle to 25 helped and the example sweep actually displayed eventually. But your suggestion of joining several short pieces is the way to go for me. Should I use Join or Boolean Connect for this?
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.109 In reply to 4737.108 
Hi Martin - if you have pieces that have edges that are directly on top of each other then you can use Edit > Join. If you're going to do that you would want to delete the end caps of the pieces (or not generate them in the first place by disabling the option in Sweep) before copying them so that the edges to join are open and not already connected between 2 surfaces.

Boolean Union would probably work too, but the booleans generally try to do a kind of more complex task of finding intersections between objects and then cutting them up and removing some material.

If you don't actually need any material to be removed like when you've got surfaces sitting next to one another with their edges actually touching each other then Join will glue those together with a lesser amount of computation than the booleans.

If you've got something like 2 objects that are pushing partway though each other, and you want to combine those, then that's the kind of thing where you would definitely need to use Boolean Union since you would want some intersections between the different surfaces to happen.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  phlatt5th (P5TH)
4737.110 In reply to 4737.103 
Seems pretty stable on the iMac with the specs i gave before. I did what I (a newbie) would consider a fairly complex (study see attached). A flow with a high number of spherical solids to a twist to a boolean. When I tried to boolean all at once the it failed to produce the desired result however when I boolean in small bites the the end was successful. The old shortcuts and the scripts I tried work. script for quit Alt+Q or Cmd+Q works well and it holds my changes except for the full screen for which I just click the green button. Will keep testing on other machines.

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  osx59
4737.111 In reply to 4737.102 
oK Michael
wait and see...

thanks

Vincent

;-)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  deepshade
4737.112 In reply to 4737.83 
A 2.5 OSX release sounds good to me.

Look forward to seeing the public trial version

atb

Paul
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.113 In reply to 4737.18 
Hi Luis, earlier you had reported that it doesn't work on your machine:

> Tried it on an my black macbook with Lion (OSX 10.7.2) but the views
> don't work. only get a big pixelated black ellipses on all of them. doesnt
> matter if I switch to single view either. :(
>
> any suggestions?

Could you please go to the "About this Mac" > System report > "Graphics/Displays" section and post what that screen there says about your display chipset?

Over here I just got in a 13" MacBook Pro with Lion 10.7 which has "Intel HD Graphics 3000" as the display chipset, and I had thought it would help me to test and debug the display problem that you're seeing on your machine, but on this machine the display is working fine without any of the problems that you are seeing.

This is good news for me on one hand that not all Intel chipset systems have a problem. But on the other hand it leaves me wondering what is the difference between this system and your system where it does not work properly.

I guess one difference is that you've got Lion 10.7.2 and this one has just Lion 10.7 - maybe there are some new video driver problems with the update, I'll try to update and see what happens then.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Jeff Hammond (JEFF_HAMMOND)
4737.114 In reply to 4737.113 
>Over here I just got in a 13" MacBook Pro with Lion 10.7 which has "Intel HD Graphics 3000" as the display chipset, and I had thought it would help me to test and debug the display problem that you're seeing on your machine, but on this machine the display is working fine



hey, that is good news!
college students are going to love you :)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.115 In reply to 4737.114 
Hi Jeff,

> hey, that is good news!
> college students are going to love you :)

Yup, it should help a lot of people out having it work on the low-end machines.

That Intel chipset is not exactly a high performance chipset for 3D graphics though, and so it probably will be more suited for more medium level complexity scenes and not particularly high detail modeling. But it should work fine for quite a lot of kinds of models.

The question is why does not it not work on Luis' machine... Maybe there was some kind of driver glitch in the 10.7.2 update, I'm downloading that now to see if I can repeat it under 10.7.2 - it could be something simple like the updated graphics driver not reporting that it supports some particular function when it actually does do it.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  SW03
4737.116 
OMG... I was just away for a few weeks and now a OSX Beta Version? I just nearly fell off my chair when I read this. Michael has to win some kind of best-customer-listener award or something... :D

*EDIT* Seems to work very well for me on 10.6.8... I'll have a closer look later.

EDITED: 30 Nov 2011 by SW03

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.117 In reply to 4737.113 
Ok, well I updated this 13" MacBook Pro with the Intel HD Graphics 3000 chipset to Lion 10.7.2 and MoI is still running fine on it...

So Luis, any information you can give me about what your graphics chipset is or if you possibly have any system extensions/haxies running would be helpful.

Also if anyone else is running the MoI OSX beta with an Intel graphics chipset, please let me know if it's working for you or not.

Over here at least it seems to be running fine on it.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Luis (LFUNG)
4737.118 In reply to 4737.117 
my black mac has a lowly intel GMA 950 w/ 64MB video ram. no hackies, plain lion (10.7.2) on intel core 2 duo + 4gb main memory (although it can only access 3gb, don't ask me why, ask apple and/or intel). :(
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
4737.119 In reply to 4737.118 
Hi Luis,

> my black mac has a lowly intel GMA 950 w/ 64MB video ram.

I see - so that's the difference. That Intel GMA 950 chipset is much older than the Intel 3000 series.

On Windows, MoI can actually run on a GMA950, but on the Mac the display system that it uses needs to have certain OpenGL features available, and most likely the GMA950 just does not have the particular OpenGL function that is needed.

I'm sorry but I'm not too optimistic about making it work.

It looks like the MacBook line switched away from using the Intel GMA 950 back in 2007, so as far as I can tell I can't actually buy a new machine from Apple that has that graphics chipset in it anymore.

Right now to use MoI on that machine would involve using Boot Camp to boot to Windows, then MoI would run there.

On top of all that, the GMA950 is basically at the extreme far low end of things as far as 3D graphics computing horsepower goes. It's just not a very good system to use for 3D graphics oriented programs.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Luis (LFUNG)
4737.120 In reply to 4737.119 
I'm sure it's between OSX and the way they enable OpenGL, since Moi ran just fine on the same machine with Vista + W7.

I also tried it with Linux Mint + wineconfig a while back and was able to get the viewports going just fine at one point, but the rest of the ui would just not work properly...probably cause the wine 1.3 libs were still under heavy development (i think they were on alpha at that point)...

since then i reloaded the mac with lion and haven't looked back...
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Chyman
4737.121 In reply to 4737.119 
Hi Michael,

thanks for your efforts on the Intel graphics, but actually there is probably a little misunderstanding. There are quite a few chips with a 3000 in the name. Here is a short chronological list (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMA_X3100 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_Graphics ):

Graphic chips on motherboard:
Intel GMA 950 (MacBook 2006 - mid 2007) Luis's MacBook
Intel GMA 3000
Intel GMA X3000
Intel GMA X3100 (MacBook late 2007 - late 2008) My MacBook
Intel GMA X3500

Graphic chips on CPU chip (Sandybridge):
Intel HD Graphics 2000
Intel HD Graphics 3000 (MacBook Pro 13") Your MacBook Pro

Hope that helps a bit...
Chyman
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
Show messages:  1  …  42-61  62-81  82-101  102-121  122-141  142-161  162-180