10.2.3 (or 10.3) waiting :)

Ben says…"
No, apps don't have to be specifically coded to "Metal" to access the system resources that targets. Metal is not a framework,…"
Apple calls it "Metal Framework" all over the Developer's section… "Documentation
MetalKit Framework Reference New
The MetalKit framework makes it even easier to integrate Metal into your apps by providing essential APIs for controlling drawing and loading graphic assets.…
The Metal framework supports GPU-accelerated advanced 3D graphics rendering and data-parallel computation workloads. Metal provides a modern and streamlined API for fine-grained, low-level control of the organization, processing, and submission of graphics and computation commands, as well as the management of the associated data and resources for these commands. A primary goal of Metal is to minimize the CPU overhead incurred by executing GPU workloads."… All from Apple's developer website.

Watch the WWDC 2015 sessions on Metal. Read documentation, See Metal requirements, Xcode.
This is where Metal for Mac is introduced. It was first introduced for iOS

APIs or Application Programming Interface is specific coding accessing the "Metal Framework" prefixed by MTK and MetalKit, Metal Feature Sets, Metal Shaders, Metal etc… which is specific to the Metal Framework. All of the coding is differentiated from other frameworks. It does indeed call for very specific Metal calls.

So I think you misunderstand what "Metal" is.

According to Apple it is indeed a "Framework" and does indeed require specific coding for Metal to be engaged. There is a fallback to older Open CL/GL code if Metal is not available, this allows older code to execute but will most likely be slower. The whole point of Metal is to reduce the CPU load, it is somewhat equivalent to Vulcan or DirectX. All 3 are replacements and improvements to old, bloated Open CL/GL code.

APIs merely allow programmers to access various program resources and defined calls within the OS. This both makes it easier to interface with the code, execute routines and to prevent "violations" or non compliant code access. APIs for Apple can be utilized via Xcode and Swift Programming language. Of course you can also use other languages, but you have to conform and write to the available calls/routines.

What do you think APIs do?

Ask a knowledgeable Apple programmer if Metal is a "Framework" or not. If they say no, then ask why Apple promotes it as a "Framework" and how would a programmer access Metal code, and why would Apple write all the "Metal" code if not a separate "Framework". How can it be utilized if not by "Metal" calls?

I'll stand by my statement that "Metal is indeed a Framework" and the APIs are merely a interface for the Metal coding which must be specifically written in an app in order to take advantage of Metal's performance. No Metal code = no Metal calls = no performance benefits; hence apps must be specifically rewritten to take advantage of Metal.
If this isn't correct, then I have spent the last 8 months or so not understanding anything about Metal I have been reading/studying/coding from on Apple's website.

Greg

I hope the update doesn´t focus too much on VR stuff.
Certainly a nice and interesting topic but sound improvements would really be something a lot of people would be happy about.

I really hope it is a huge bug killer, I was so annoyed at the last update where 1 person got what they wanted, share to multiple youtube accounts, I mean how many people asked for that.

I have not seen that missing feature been mentioned anywhere, not even when FCPX was 10.0.0!! No one mentioned they needed to share to multiple accounts at the same time, yet this was included, no remove attributes, no send to motion, now Xsend to motion, a paid app, send to motion should be part and parcel of the app itself.

Send to motion is like buying a car, and having to go to a store and buy a key to open the oil reservoir, when access to this is vital to the running of the car, 2 apps made by 1 company, that they cannot talk to each other like it used to is insane.

I listened to the latest fcp radio about Automatic Duck and Xsend to motion, and I totally disagree, Apple has the funds, to hire the very best brains on the planet, that Apple does not know is pandering to the insane, if Automatic Duck can figure out a half arsed solution, and it is, half arsed, you can share a project to motion, but you have to export an xml for a compound clip and there is no way to send back to FCPX, and still have to pay for this...

No that is just not good enough, that is akin to GM saying about the Corvair, oh we know the car rolls in corners, we left off the anti-roll bar, go ahead and reduce tyre pressures.. What insane logic is that.. I really admire Ralph Nader for standing up and saying that is crap.

I am saying it is crap Apple cannot roundtrip to motion 5 years after the app was released, and I say that Automatic Duck solution is an expensive workaround, no one is holding Apple's feet to the fire, it is time we demanded answers and stop excusing Apple.

Apple has no excuses left, 60 months into a 120 month life-cycle of a product and basics are still missing, I have no idea what is in the next update, more shiny things to fool us into thinking the app is better, if it does not have send to motion, remove attributes, better xml, then it is just smoke and mirrors, Jony is the wizard of Cupertino.

MsJustine wrote: …I am saying it is crap Apple cannot roundtrip to motion 5 years after the app was released, ….

leaving your belly button out of focus for a second…
ever considered this is intentionally, by concept?

Consider Motion not as an extender, but a tool-maker for FCPX.
That simple.
Then, Apple will not roundtrip the next 5 years....... or 50 years.-

MsJustine wrote: I really hope it is a huge bug killer, I was so annoyed at the last update where 1 person got what they wanted, share to multiple youtube accounts, I mean how many people asked for that.

I have not seen that missing feature been mentioned anywhere, not even when FCPX was 10.0.0!! No one mentioned they needed to share to multiple accounts at the same time, yet this was included, no remove attributes, no send to motion, now Xsend to motion, a paid app, send to motion should be part and parcel of the app itself.

Send to motion is like buying a car, and having to go to a store and buy a key to open the oil reservoir, when access to this is vital to the running of the car, 2 apps made by 1 company, that they cannot talk to each other like it used to is insane.

I listened to the latest fcp radio about Automatic Duck and Xsend to motion, and I totally disagree, Apple has the funds, to hire the very best brains on the planet, that Apple does not know is pandering to the insane, if Automatic Duck can figure out a half arsed solution, and it is, half arsed, you can share a project to motion, but you have to export an xml for a compound clip and there is no way to send back to FCPX, and still have to pay for this...

No that is just not good enough, that is akin to GM saying about the Corvair, oh we know the car rolls in corners, we left off the anti-roll bar, go ahead and reduce tyre pressures.. What insane logic is that.. I really admire Ralph Nader for standing up and saying that is crap.

I am saying it is crap Apple cannot roundtrip to motion 5 years after the app was released, and I say that Automatic Duck solution is an expensive workaround, no one is holding Apple's feet to the fire, it is time we demanded answers and stop excusing Apple.

Apple has no excuses left, 60 months into a 120 month life-cycle of a product and basics are still missing, I have no idea what is in the next update, more shiny things to fool us into thinking the app is better, if it does not have send to motion, remove attributes, better xml, then it is just smoke and mirrors, Jony is the wizard of Cupertino.

Not sure the guys at Automatic Duck will appreciate all of their hard work on Xsend being summarised as "Half Arsed".

Yes I had considered that send to motion was left out for a reason, and without knowing the actual reason, Apple could say, but I would not trust Apple with the reason, it is simply not a good enough reason to leave it to a 3rd party, that made a great attempt to solve a problem that should not have been a problem.

FCPX and Motion are tied together in such a way, that only Apple can solve this problem, if Automatic Duck, or another 3rd party had access to the entire code of both, then maybe a solution can be found, Wes Plate created a workaround, that only solves a very small number of problems with the FCPX and Motion marriage.

Well then they need to speak out and not pander to Apple like they did, Apple is a petulant child when it comes to FCPX, and instead of solving the problem, someone else steps in and tries to fix the problem with a half arsed solution, and it is half arsed, it does half of the round trip, you get the footage into Motion, then what??? That is an elegant solution? NO..

Only Apple can fix this issue, and waiting to see the new update, and I am not expecting send to motion to be fixed by Apple.

Sorry Wes you have done the community of FCPX a disservice with xsend to motion, now there is less pressure on Apple to fix this problem that Apple created, and 60 months in, have failed to fix, and I cannot understand why no one cares!!

MsJustine wrote: Sorry Wes you have done the community of FCPX a disservice with xsend to motion, now there is less pressure on Apple to fix this problem that Apple created, and 60 months in, have failed to fix, and I cannot understand why no one cares!!

I strongly suspect Wes cares for one. How you can say that Wes has done the FCPX community a disservice by having the gaul to provide a solution, even in part, sooner than Apple have is quite frankly a huge insult to Wes.

Does Xsend allow people to do things they can't do now? YES. Does it allow people to do everything they want to do. No. But then again, this is version 1. Who knows what version 2 will bring. At least someone has started the journey for us and I for one am very grateful to Wes and his team.

MsJustine wrote: ... only Apple can solve this problem,...

if you'd understand my reply, you'd see there is no problem. For Apple.

The problem is there, it was there from the moment Apple made the decision to abandon development of Final Cut Studio 4 in favour of FCPX, so how long is that? A decade or more that they knew people would want/demand/expect send to motion, as this was a vital aspect of Final Cut Studio 3.

I am fed up with the excuses people proffer explaining why Apple has not/refuses to attend to aspects of the workflow such as this.

Instead Apple decided to sleight of hand, divert attention with 3d text, send to multiple youtube accounts, without fixing the obvious, which makes me wonder how devoted Apple is to the actual app itself, Logic has way more attention it seems to me, that logic is way ahead in it's development path than FCPX, Motion lags behind, the 2 apps most people entering video editing use are somewhat starved of development, why???

I question as I think, I see, I observe, I do not just accept what I am told, I see things that do not make sense, why no remove attributes, this is so obvious, it is needed, not a huge fix I am sure, why it has not been included makes me wonder things.

Why not give Wes Plate greater access to the code? If Apple wants this fixed, then why not? As Wes Plate said, "At what cost to your reputation in not fixing this?"

That is my view, Apple is spending away great reputation for I am not sure what..

Shall we just all agree it should be a feature in FCPX and Wes has done his best and that's a good thing.

Let's move on...

peteramwiggins wrote: Shall we just all agree it should be a feature in FCPX and Wes has done his best and that's a good thing.

Let's move on...

Totally agree Pete.

I am very impressed by Blackmagic commitment because they bought Fusion last year and they already implemented round tripping in their new version

Enough now, let's get back to trying to get information from those people that are under NDA!!

Are all of those presented features going to be in the next update or in the next couple of update? Did they give any time frame. Can you tell us that? I know, I know NDA, maybe you can say something.

NDAs normally have an expiry date on for when people can start to talk about it openly. I wonder if we can get that info or if that is also under the NDA. It'd probably give a clue as to an official announcement / release.

The last big big update was 10.1 IMO, 10.2 wasn't anything, special, a few tweaks and fixes. So hoping 10.3 is big. Audio mxiing is the main thing I want to see.

Apple NDA's have no expiration date. I've beta tested before, and still can't talk about what I beta tested. Same is true here at NAB. Mostly it was due to copyrighted material and such being shown. I can say no one got info on future release dates versions or dates. So please stop asking. No one who attended can say anything. If folks to blab, Apple made it clear these Apple keynotes at NAB would end. They made it clear FCPX is moving in a positive direction, they are well aware of what the professional user base wants, and are quite passionate about the product.

Last word On my way! Metal from me, "Metalkit", like "WebKit", just a way to access existing deep system resources, not a replacement for anything, not a new "engine" for anything. I have good authority on this about the pro apps, stand by my statements, discussion on my part over.

As for what Apple should or should not do with Motion, null discussion. Thank you Wes Plate for you and your father doing so much hard work for us. Sending from FCPX to Motion is NOT an easy task, it is very complicated and difficult. I for one am great full for Xsend.

Regarding Apple NDA and the coming update: I totally agree with Ben. No use in asking questions on public forums, you won't get any answers. At least not from people who really know something. The update will be what it will be, and it will come when it will come. As always.

- Ronny

If people don't want questions asked then they should stop dropping hints on forums

Let's hope Apple share their news and enthusiasm about FCPX with all of us at the Coalface who have been using it every day since the beginning. Because, I'll be honest, I'm not feeling it at the moment

If people don't want questions asked then they should stop dropping hints on forums

Agreed!

- Ronny

I am glad that at least it is moving in a good direction. Also, it's great to hear that Apple is dedicated to developing the application and its ecosystem further.