largento

Guys, we're just spinning our wheels here. Let's everyone back off and wait for the verdict from Steffen.

Yeah, but that last minute patch almost entirely dealt with the Mail app. 9to5mac.com published a complete list of what was different between the two builds. One iCalc file was changed and an XML file involved with OpenCL bridge support changed. OpenCL was never implemented in A:M because Steffen ran into problems with differences in graphics cards and incompatibility with the A:M renderer. Steffen has already identified the problem: "It looks like Apple has changed functions/entrypoints in the libstdc++" I wish I knew anything about such things, but even googling this just brings back an ocean of silly string that I can't make heads nor tails of. :-) I did see this, which might be something: "OS X 10.9 Mavericks is the first version to use libc++; previous versions of OS X used libstdc++" This page seems to discuss the problems, too. Specifically, it says this: "For every new package you install or update, you will have to re-install any of its dependencies that you previously installed on a previous version of OS X. This is because libstdc++ has been removed in favour of libc++, and things compiled with one aren't compatible with the other." This would seem to jive with Steffen finding that A:M would run with old files in the library.

I do, too, but like you say, there aren't enough of us to justify the expense of writing it from the bottom up, even if there was a willingness or desire to do it. And if Steffen can patch it up, will it still work a year from now when the next OS is released? As Sebastian said, the future of A:M on the Mac is looking foggy. What we're talking about missing in the OS came with plenty of warning. Apple switched from PPC chips to Intel in 2006. It's now 2013. Even Steffen has been warning for years that the day would come when the Mac version would be kaput.

As a consumer, I'm not so interested in whether they are "developer friendly" or not. Clearly all the tools are provided by Apple, so it's really more a case of whether or not the developer has the resources or wants to commit the resources to writing and maintaining the app. I think it's a terrible time for software companies, because nobody really wants to pay for the software anymore. Consumers expect it to be free or dirt cheap. This "one ring to rule them all" perception is inaccurate. Apple wants the consumer to have a trouble-free experience. Presumably software companies should want the same for their customers. So it stands to reason that Apple wouldn't want to have tons of legacy code and have the consumer running unreliable applications. I think we've seen here that when there's a problem with the software, it's Apple that is going to be the one getting the complaint. They don't want complaints. That's the point of the Mac App Store, too. They're encouraging consumers to only purchase apps from the store because that way they can confirm that they don't include any faulty code or malware. I suspect Windows is going to move that direction, too. Given all the bad stuff out there, the average consumer (the ones who mostly bought their software in boxes) doesn't want to download applications from various websites. Frankly, whose fault it is that A:M no longer runs on the Macintosh doesn't matter at all to me. I'm not angry, I'm sad. If you are a Windows user, clearly this doesn't effect you, but were the tables turned and the Windows version had stopped working and the only alternative you were given was to switch to a Mac, I suspect you would be far more vocal in your disappointment than we have been. For many years now, I've been an A:M enthusiast, not just a user. I fell in love with A:M so hard that I quit my job just to spend more time with it. :-) It may not effect you, but it sure as Hell effects me.

How far back were you before you upgraded, David? Sounds like your apps may have been PPC apps. The only real apps I use are the Adobe apps and A:M. I haven't checked in the last few days, but initially Adobe announced that there weren't any issues. 'Course, nowadays, Adobe is updating the apps every 2 seconds with this cloud thing. Robert, I wouldn't know the particulars, but my understanding is that software developers can download early versions of the Mac OS and work with Apple to make their apps work in advance of the OS being released to the public. Since Steffen only just installed Mavericks, I'm assuming that Hash isn't in that system. It may be that you have to be developing an actual Mac application. I believe that's why A:M can't be sold through the Mac App Store. It would have to be entirely written as a Mac app, using Cocoa.

Agreed, Mark. One thing I just discovered is that using Parallels, I can install a virtual machine of OS X Mountain Lion. This would be aggravating that both versions of A:M would have to run through virtual machines, but it would let me to update to Mavericks and still run A:M in Mountain Lion. I think I might go ahead and try this (installing the VM, not updating to Mavericks). One question I was considering was attempting to install an older Mac OS, rather than Mountain Lion. I do have the disc for Snow Leopard (10.6). Since each new version seems to affect A:M, I wonder if it would run better on an older OS?

I wonder if I updated, if those files would still be there for me, too? I think I started with Snow Leopard and updated to Mountain Lion (I skipped Lion.)

I realize there are some things (okay many things) in English that don't make much sense, but in the case of the first example, the better way to say it would be: "Drive an unnecessarily big car when you don't even need a small one."

Awesome! Very cool!

Not being at all savvy about such things, but could there be a possibility of copying those libraries and making it so we can add them to our installs?

Fun stuff, Rodney! I haven't been to this thread in quite awhile.

I was meaning A:M. Appzapper tells me that there are some preference files that A:M places in the Library that could have been corrupted in the same way as Parallels' system files were corrupted.

It's tricky, but yes, you can copy keyframes from one pose to another. I do it with things like eyeblinks. You copy the keyframe on one pose and then paste the inverted keyframe in another and voila, you have a pose for the other eye blinking. Just make sure that you have them both set to muscle mode ...and I vaguely remember problems can happen if you have more than one of them open at a time. Best to open one, copy the key frame, close it, and then open the other and paste the keyframe into it.

I have done this very thing. I created default pose actions for many of my characters that I dropped on them after I placed them in the cho. If you want to start with a pose in a choreography, just export it as an action. Remember, also, that you can copy and paste keyframes. If I bring a character into a cho, pose him and then select choreography actions under the model in the pws, I can use the edit menu to copy keyframe. I can then drop in another model (with the same rig) and use the edit menu to paste keyframe and the second model will appear exactly in the same place and pose as the first model.

Jesse, here's another thing to try. I'm reading that people are having trouble with Parallels not starting after upgrading to Mavericks. The solution they are going with is to uninstall the software, use Disk Utility to Repair Permissions to your boot drive, restart and reinstall the software. They say the problem is that the OS X upgrade is corrupting Parallels system files.

That's great, David! Nice, cartoony look to everything.

The significant problem is that now every single new Mac sold has Mavericks loaded on it and there isn't an option to take it back to a previous operating system. We don't know when v18 will be released and we're guessing that Steffen can solve the problem. Some kind of notice needs to be put up on the store/website advising potential customers that A:M will not run under the current Mac OS. Rodney & Robert may not be aware that Mavericks is a free release and is recommended for Macs going back as far 2007. It's required to run all of the new Apple software (iLife apps & iWork apps anyway). Mac users are not like Windows users. Mac users upgrade their machines. To not advise current and potential customers of this problem is only asking for more bad PR for A:M. People finding themselves in Jesse's situation aren't likely to just "stay calm" and wait for a "possible" fix. They need to be advised in advance.

Nevertheless, some kind of advisory needs to be released to warn Mac Users that the software will stop working if they apply the Mavericks upgrade. It would be irresponsible not to.

Unfortunately, the circumstance with A:M is now we only have one programmer working on A:M on a voluntary basis. I know that when I first started using A:M (back in 2004), the Mac version was a separate app. There was a definite disparity between them not only in performance, but in features. Features would roll out on the Windows app first and then later be integrated into the Mac version. I gather that was abandoned at some point and now the Mac version is a port of the Windows version. And the means of doing that apparently make use of code written for the PowerPC and slowly deleted from the Mac OS after the Intel switch. In fairness to Apple, they kept support for PowerPC for many years after the switch (in 2006.) I'm in the middle of making a movie, so I'm going to have to stick with Mountain Lion until I have it finished and then consider my options after that. Fingers crossed that Steffen can make v18 work with Mavericks, 'cause as you say, the Mac version will have to be dropped otherwise.

Jesse, have you tried starting up in safe mode and then trying 17g? Hold the shift key during startup.

Well, that's disappointing to hear. I've got Windows A:M running via Parallels, but I'm not quite ready to say goodbye to the Mac version. The Mac version was greatly improved in v16, so going back to v15 doesn't sound appealing. I wonder if v18 works? Maybe Steffen can say?

I'm in the middle of something and don't want to risk it. I'm sorely tempted, though.

Sure! This one right here.

Great retro look, Sebastian! Masterfully done!

I did this VERY simple setup for a car awhile back.