i think all it is all funny these software companies. how hard is it to once develop software with capabilities and then work continuosly on minor or major upgrades. it is not any f…g service. i buy a car i use it and then i buy another new one two gens later. this funny trimble company improves nothing and want to sell sketchup for 1000e a year and bring nothing except new icon. this whole situation in the aec software market is ridiculous. cads running on kernels written in 1980s. noone has power to really change anything major, they can just keep on feeding this marketing oriented machinery. there should be new player running on new russian geometric kernel to really step into game and raise competition. this seems to go on forever. do you think in 2100 the world will finally have fully stable reliable 3d soft? at this pace there will only be parasolid kernel with tons of code built upon the same old core from 1980. trimbles tekla structures soft cant even handle curves they still want thousands of euros every year
Yes, but they are keeping backwards compatibility alive with Rosetta 2, even support for OpenCL and OpenGL. Also the leaked benchmarks of the dev kit seem promising in this regard.
I agree that ARM is probably the future. Even Microsoft has been working on that for years now with some of their surface products.
Also the traditional CPU-GPU-combo is nearing its limits really when it comes to power distribution and heat development. With ARM you can probably invest less energy for CPU tasks and allocate more to the GPU, which can only bring advantages, especially for CG apps which do lots of floating point calculations.
I get it! Anyways, very cool that you attempt something like this!
Sounds super interesting! 
Are you trying to produce the outer walls and roof from a boundary/perimeter curve?
Yes, the simplicity of modelling in SketchUp is still unmatched. Especially Rhino is a kinda clumsy modelling tool in many regards. Very cool!
Even this is only really a half-truth, since they’ll keep supporting OpenGL for years to come, and it’s already deprecated! Also Metal still needs to be ported to ARM too.
It’s a standard yes, but development has been sluggish for years. Also I see nobody bitching about Direct X in here.
There are other things that support Metal, like for instance AMD’s Radeon ProRender and it rocks in Blender! It beats the Rhino Cycles experience on macOS by large.
Exactly, also everybody pretty much knows that car leasing is basically a scam!
Exactly, although it’s suggested quite often, especially to inexperienced users, who look for a quick fix to some issue (i.e. quad remeshing). I’ve noticed it a couple of times, where staff tells somebody “you should try WIP, because of this and that feature…”.
Yes, that was the case for 6 WIP too, I believe! At the end it quickly went away, if I remember correctly. 
you could save to R5 from R6 WIP, and you can do it from R6, so I don’t know what you mean by “went away”.
Hm. I don’t think renting a car is a scam. I also don’t think that renting software is a scam either. I do understand very well the tax incentive etc (living in the tax paradise Sweden we know about that aspect, believe me) but the tax-regulations is seldom if ever relevant to private owners.
But as long as there’s a choice you can chose the alternative which suits you the best. Companies and private individuals would typically think different about which alternative is “best”. I think there’s some confusion about this aspect in this thread - about the choice and the preconditions for ownership.
How can there be any confusion about the simple fact that owning and being forced to subscribe is not the “same” thing?
Lets not repeat all the problems that can happen to a private owner which may suddenly lose access to his own data.
I do rent my apartment, an if I suddenly no longer has income I may have to relocate to the forests. But that doesn’t mean I lose access to the stuff I have in the apartment… (but now it gets complicated this… because parables are parables and hardware isn’t software and… never mind. )
// Rolf
Where I come from renting and leasing are two different things.
Yes, but neither is a scam. It has pros and cons. Perpetual licenses has too. Point being, they’re all different.
// Rolf
Interesting! Have you had a chance to look at Finch3D? It’s an architectural plug-in development for Grasshopper.
Maybe if you have cool tools in development you can work out a merge. 
afaik it’s kind of tricky. “Supporting OpenGL” doesn’t quite mean “supporting OpenGL”. Leaving the OpenGL library inside the system doesn’t it will get repaired if sth broke. Due to the drastic architecture change, I would believe OpenGL on Apple ARM is translated into Metal. Again, it will work, but the performance won’t be the optimal.
Metal is already available on ARM. Although someone has to program something, like ProRender you mentioned.
With Pirateboy as your forum name. I’m sure you think paying for anything you can download is a scam.
Calm down, a stupid name (like I have as well) is not a statement. 
If I could change it without loosing my forum history, I would!
I think both license models are valid. That tax argument is actually a good one, since I do have some self employed family members, and for them having frequent expensives is a great argument. At least in Germany it makes sense to have similar expensives each year. Depending on the profession, license costs can have an impact on the taxing.
Nevertheless, I have the feeling that subscription licencing is more expensive for the end-user. I bet the amount of people never or hardly upgrading their software is large. I also believe, that a subscription model prevents innovation, since developer don’t need to find arguments for upgrading. But some softwares are at a point where there is not much to innovate. Adobe is a prefect example. Except all the niché functionality, what is essentially missing in Photoshop? I do own Affinity products as well, and although it is missing some features compared to its Adobe counterparts, for the tasks I (and most casual users) need it, it works well enough!
So maybe if a software is changing its license model to subscription, it just means its basically a finished product!
Yes, I get where you’re coming from, but we’ll have to wait and see. I chose to be a little more optimistic.
Form me the move to ARM really bears many opportunities, especially in terms of performance.
It’s funny all the talk about compatibility issues, when in reality most Linux distros are absolutely ARM compatible (as is Windows) and many open-source applications already run on ARM without issues.
How can for instance Blender run on a Raspberry Pi (ARM processor) and the predictions for Rhino are that it is possibly not possible? I mean both apps do a lot of the same things really and the latter one is even paid for.
For you Sir, it’s still p1r4t3b0y. 
It really amazes how much you can tell from a username. I still have to refer to soaked tea leaves and/or coffee grounds for my stipulations and predictions. I fear the air is a bit thin up there in the stratosphere, isn’t it?
Are you? The only thing I be-titled as a scam is car leasing.
You’re right that in principle neither is a scam, although in reality - I correct myself - car renting is also a scam, especially on holidays.
Most people don’t like app subscriptions and too frequent updates that’s simply a fact. Just look at how many customers Adobe really lost to cheaper, non-subscription based alternatives, because of their creative cloud shenanigans. You barely see Photoshop or Illustrator anymore, especially on social media, which quite frankly must be a huge marketing debacle for them.
I don’t think so! Most programs are really endless works in progress, just look at how many times Rhino 6 has already been updated.
Generally, subscriptions are a new marketing ploy to simply draw more money out of people’s pockets.
I imagine it was really a drag, all the money you needed to spend on marketing and adds to make people aware of “new” features, but in the end only a small percentage of your user base even updated.
Furthermore, people generally are vigilant (or lazy) when it comes to updates, because change means having to invest energy and money in getting to know something new. It’s as simple as that, I think!
Subscriptions are the perfect remedy to that! Everybody is pretty much trapped in your model, stays pseudo-loyal to the product, although many customers simply forget to cancel on time.
I believe some people are even oblivious to how many “services” they are even subscribed too! I get it, between all the Netflixes, Spotifies, Adobe Creative Clouds, Fusion360s, Apple Musics, Disney +s, etc., it must be super hard to keep an overview.
The most despicable thing about subscription models really is that it all goes away in an instant, when you’re not able to pay anymore. In a professional setting that can be detrimental even cancerous, if you lose your tools in times of hardship. When you own a piece of software at least you don’t have to worry that someone will take it away. Even if you’re stuck with an older version you can still do your work. I guess all the subscription shills do at least have to see that, and believe me everybody can fall on hard times. Life is long!
Like … Windows 10 (?) It’s really finished given that Microsoft has hugely reduced Q&A staff.
First of all, I won’t argue for subscription licenses!
Of course software is never finished in a way that you can’t develop. And of course its not fitting for any software. Its about the problems a software should solve. And if the software solves your problem, you can develop tools to solve other problems (many people don’t need to solve) or you just change the “experience” (like Dassault and Autodesk names it ) .
My point is that most people just upgrade if they see a valid reason. You cannot tell to an end-user that he/she should rebuy a software after 2 years, just because of fixing bugs or providing irrelevant features.
The average joe updates if there is a real benefit for his/her workflow. Take Photoshop, AutoCad or MS Office. Photoshop didn’t offer any useful tool for over 10 years. Same as AutoCad. Office, why buying the newest version other than receiving security updates and to run it on newer Windows? I found Outlook 2010 even better to work with, simply because of its better GUI. But if you ask me what is missing in those tools, I couldn’t tell you much. And I believe many people think the same.
Rhino is different, it has wide range of problems to solve. The main task of surface modelling is still far away from being efficently solved. There is so much room for improvement. Rhino also offers still a lot of innovation, and as fun fact it also looses innovation. So people will always upgrade or use multiple version.
The software is a broken product, so wired that there will always be some loose or badly soldered wire. It’s something inherent to complex systems, the more complex something is, the more prone to errors (humans are a good example of this). One doesn’t consider a software stable when it doesn’t have errors, but when those errors are far from the normal user experience. Everything is patched, overlapping technologies of very different origins in which at any moment it can become obsolete and produce a spill. But well varnished and polished for the end user. And it is usually not a mass product that you can sell millions of times at a reasonable price to make up for all the hours of work it takes.
It is not like a physical tool, but rather like a living being. If you create it and then copy it and that’s it, as a physical product, that software has an expiration date, or it is copied or it becomes obsolete or dysfunctional by some change in the environment. Like a living being, if it stagnates or if you rip it out of its environment or if it doesn’t feed every day, it dies. The life of a software is not only its gestation, is its maintenance and development. When you buy a software, whatever model it is, you are not paying to use it, you are also paying for its past, present and future development.
I know that as a user, the subscription is worse. But for the software industry, it is the right model, or at least, a better one. As users, we are badly educated, we don’t give the value the software has for what we expect from it. We don’t even understand the life of many other products as they are, when we think of a car for example, we think it is a product that you buy and that’s it, it has a fixed price. But it is not like that, to use it, besides buying it, you have to include the price of the times you have refueled or replaced some piece. As they are different distributors, it escapes our understanding, but what if everything was done by the same company and they included all that in the price to offer you a product without additional costs for the rest of its useful life? and if, in addition, that car had the possibility of not working well or having safety problems after two or three years? would the automotive industry be what it is today?
At the end of the day for the user, it is not a license model problem, but a price problem. The subscription model does not by design force the user to pay more, it is the company that decides charge more.
There is one very important difference with the forced subscription - the moment You stop paying, the moment You are left with NOTHING!
I can subscribe to a hammer, but what I did with it stay with me when I stop paying! This is the key here - You are forced to pay to use your files to witch You have already payed to create!
It’s not true. You can open 3dm with many other programs or export them to more universal formats. Gh files are pieces of code, not a 3d model, so it’s logical that you can’t use them outside.
Yes, it is! What about the metadata, the design-intent, scenes, materials, layers structure, custom plugins, - say VisualArq, Vray, Tspline etc. etc! It is not always a dump 3D or 2D geometry. And I have to pay to other software to use and open my files.
Well, yeah, you’re more right than I am. But it wouldn’t be a problem to offer a free, read-only lite version of Rhino. My point is that whether you want to charge more or less or give more or less of a software is up to each company, it doesn’t depend on the licensing model.
What patch would that be? The one that was mentioned in the union state address? No patch has been submitted since to Developer Portal - developer.blender.org - nor has Apple been in contact with Blender devs about this to begin with, AFAIK.
FWIW Cycles doesn’t use OpenGL - but it does (or did, on Mac) OpenCL.
For Blender the path post-OpenGL is going to be with Vulkan. And on the Mac it is likely going to be MoltenVK.
Hi there, we would be very interested of hearing this directly from you. Allow me to introduce myself, I am Rony, founder of AESLER (Architect and engineering consultant) we have been using extensive Revit BIM for our projects from small to large scale project.
See some of our works here:
We are now developing a bridge for easier integration between BIM 3D, 4D, 5D and 6D in revit.
Especially from 4D to 6D BIM where most of other application does not cater for this capabilities.
We would like to hear for your creative solutions. Anywhere we can see some these? Through links or some of your projects?
Thanks!