TheKitchenAbode

Larry, does the laptop have a discrete graphics card or just the Intel HD chip?

Thanks Larry, that explains the result. In plan view the 3D model is not built and therefore the time will be much faster than when one is in the 3D camera view.

Thanks Larry. For Item #4 did you do the roof build in plan view or the standard 3D camera view? My posted result is when doing this in the standard 3D camera. If I do this in plan view then the roofs build in 12 seconds. What are your laptop specs?

Here's a different stress test model. This one allows you to explore more typical CA functions related to walls, roofs, windows and doors. It should not bog down anyone's system but will run slower so you can see what's going on. Suggest having Task Manger open on the process tab so you can see what component does what at what time. At the bottom of task manger there is a digital clock so you can time your operations. 1.) Open Plan. 2.) Open Task Manger, Select Process Tab, Select Options "Always on Top". 2.) Open Standard Camera View, Record Time to Open. 3.) Zoom in on one of the Houses. Should be no problem. 4.) Click on a Wall Surface and Drag up Top Edge up. Record Time to Complete Task. 5.) Hit Undo, Record time to complete task. 6.) Zoom out to see all houses. 7.) Select Build, Roof, Build Roof, Roof, Build Roof Planes, Record Time to Complete Task. What to watch for. 1.) The "3D Rebuild" pop up. 2.) In Task Manager Observe the activity levels of the CPU, GPU and Disk Drive, When They are Active and When are Not During the Processing. 3.) Depending on What you do Notice That the full 3D Rebuild only Occurs for Certain Changes. My Results (Alien X51 R3) 1.) Open Standard Camera View = 18 seconds. 2.) Drag Wall Surface up = 22 seconds. 3.) Undo Drag Wall Surface up = 22 seconds. 4.) Build Roof Planes = 35 seconds. Parade of Homes 400.plan

I just did all of those things and everything works fine at my end. I'm using X11 so maybe it's related to X10. The only other thing is that the plan you posted is just form a regular save. If you do a "Backup Entire Plan" and post it then it will contain everything which might reveal the problem.

Thank you to those who provided their results on the P-solid stress test. I have compiled the results in an Excel worksheet. Due to the limited number of results, it's not particle to analyze this too deeply, however it can clearly be seen so far that regardless of system configuration the results do not vary as one would have normally anticipated. For example, a system with an Intel HD integrated chip did not perform really any less than one with an RTX 2080 Ti which is technically almost 3,000 times faster. This also appeared to be true when comparing cores/threads, a 2/4 CPU appears to perform no less than a 12/24. Please keep in mind that this test is very specific to plan view zooming only and the results should not be extrapolated as being relevant as to overall system performance.

Was that actually the issue?

All is fine here, the only thing is when the file is opened it states that a file is missing "2ndPlan.png". Hi res pics can really slow things down.

Absolutely, they have the reliability to operate 24/7 maxed out which is a very critical requirement for server application. Also, up until the last few years they were the only way one could obtain a high number of cores. Today we have consumer grade single unit processors that have core counts of 30 or more at considerable lower cost than going the Xeon route. Again, Xeons are powerful processors and extremely reliable, just not sure that due to the types of processes in CA they are the most effective choice for the majority of users.

Really appreciate you responding to this. Might be a bit premature but looks like Macs might have the edge on this one. I will soon upload another stress test model that will explore some different operations outside of just panning and zooming.

Thanks once again. I checked back a few posts and Chris reported similar results ( 2 - 4 second lag) on his Mac Mini.

Thanks Bill, yes the 3d camera views are instant in this one, just lags in plan view.

Glenn - I think I have found a potential reason for some of the differences. The time to zoom in and out is dependent upon how large the poly-solid is to begin with. If I use the magnify icons, right tool bar, and repeatedly reduce the image it gets faster and faster. If on the other hand I repeatedly increase the size it gets slower and slower. To standardize this I suggest that once the plan is loaded one first selects the full screen icon and then records the time to reduce it by one magnification. Then resets it back to full screen and then record the time to increase it by one magnification. This should make the results more comparable. On my Spectra 360 the times are as follows. Reduce one magnification from full screen - 6 seconds Increase one magnification from full screen - 14 seconds

This is relevant to those of us who's plans reach a level of complexity that causes some type of lag that starts to interfere with our ability to work fluidly in CA. The stress testing is an attempt to identify what is actually going on and hopefully provide some direction as to how one may best overcome this.

In general I think we should be cautious at this time concerning the differences from a definitive perspective. When one is running this particular test we do not know what other programs the tester may have running at the same time which could skew the results somewhat. We also do not have a well defined means to determine precisely when one decides that their system has completed the task. As you suggest, it would be interesting to hear from other Mac users to see if there is a trend towards better performance versus Windows based pc's. It would also be interesting to hear from users with cad based cards such as Quadro to see if there is any noticeable difference.

Thanks Glen. I'm also wondering if your Radeon Pro 575 is helping out here. The other consideration is that the Mac OS and the drivers for the mouse could be more efficient than those on a PC at handling these types of operations. Will do a little research.

Thanks for running the test. The main thing to know is what the processor model is in your iMac.

It's the fill that causes the issue. It's set at 1/16" and given the size of the poly-solid CA has to really work to calculate it all. I did this primarily to provide an example to demonstrate that surfaces are not the only determining factor concerning lag. In this example there are only 12 surfaces yet the lag in plan view is considerable. I have a test model that has almost 20 million surfaces and it functions in plan view far better than this one single poly-solid. It's also worth noting that plan view performance differs from camera view performance, different elements affect the view types differently and the involved processes.

Very descriptive!!!, It was designed to stress systems so the fact that you experienced a lag is not unexpected and I greatly appreciate you reporting back some numbers. The lag you experienced is primarily due to the fact that those operations require considerable CPU processing and to make matters worse most of those processes appear to be single or lightly threaded at best. What is also important to note is that your 1080 GPU is technically almost double the performance of my 1060, yet your lag appears to be somewhat no less than what I am experiencing. You also have 24 logical cores versus my 8 logical cores, again this did not appear to be beneficial nor having double the memory. The result you saw is as would be predicted via the stress testing results and the provided analysis which indicates that under these circumstances CPU base and turbo frequency will be the primary determining performance factor. This does not mean that those dual Zeon's and 1080 GPU can't shine, it's just that the task must be one that favors their particular qualities.

Time permitting I have continued to further explore this subject and rerun many of the preliminary tests to ensure repeatability. So far all results have been consistent and supportive with the statements made to date. Direct comparisons were made between my two systems, I7 6700k Alienware and I5 Spectra 360, all indications are that the CPU differences were the primary reason for the differences in overall performance between the two systems. Technically the I 6700K is on average twice as fast as the I5 in the Spectra 360 and all of the results reflected this. Besides the CPU, the only other significant difference between the two systems is the GPU, GTX 1060 versus Intel HD 620 integrated graphics in the Spectra 360. Technically the GTX 1060 is 10 times more powerful than the HD 620, however results did not reveal this anticipated level of improved graphical performance. In all cases indications are that the CPU is restraining(limiting) the GPU's potential. As mentioned in previous posts, CA must compile(prepare) things before sending this to the GPU for final processing and this compiling is primarily CPU based. As a result, it appears that the GPU spends most of it's time waiting for something to do. Even when PBR'ing, it can be seen that the majority of scene processing time relates to CPU preparation time, this is of particular importance when a scene is being generated for the first time. Once the scene has been generated and is now primarily under GPU control then the GPU plays a much greater role as one pans and zooms within the scene. This is an important aspect to keep in mind as graphics generation is a two part process, the first being the initial preparation of the scene and the second being the handling of the scene thereafter. As a result higher end graphics cards will likely be held back by the CPU during the initial scene generating stage but should provide improved performance when moving around within the scene. What must also be explored, in respect to the above, are the processes involved when working within a scene once it is primarily under GPU control. When working in the scene the GPU only handles certain aspects such as panning and zooming, when any change to the model is made the model must be updated which is primarily a CPU based process and as such the GPU will in most cases be waiting for this new updated model. Once again that high end graphics card is likely being performance limited by the CPU.

I just tried this with a cabinet backsplash, material region & custom backsplash. Receptacle locates properly on the outer surface. One thing though, if you select the receptacle from the tool bars it will automatically position about 12" off of the floor, it may be hidden behind your cabinet. If so just raise it's height off of the floor.

This is what's conflicting. My main systems CPU is technically ranked at least 2 times faster and my GPU is technically ranked 10 times faster but we both experience similar lag. Theoretically this should not be the case.

Yes, that is correct. The point is two fold, first lag is not just surface related. The second point is whether or not those with very high end systems experience greater fluidity. In other words if my 6700K 1060 lags for 3-4 seconds then does a much more powerful system lag significantly less. If not then why not?