I have, I estimate, about £500 in FCPX plug ins that are useless with my M-1 Mac Mini. I really like everything else about this new computer and the way it handles big files and FCPX, but most of my favorite plug-ins are useless...still, after all these months.
All the developers say it is Apple's fault that they have not been updated. Does anyone have any idea what pressure is being put on Apple to free up whatever code it is they need for plug-in developers to update these costly timesavers? It's kind of been crickets on YT and other places on this subject.
What developer says Apple will not "allow" them to upgrade? CoreMelt has private beta versions out for testing on M1 machines from what I understand. I've never seen a developer state they are not allowed to update their plugins for FCP and M1.
Hi Ben: I have received replies to these inquiries from Ripple Training, Coremelt, Cinema Grade and Reelsmart Motion Blur to the effect that the ball is not in their court, they are waiting for some kind of permission or key from Apple to effect the upgrade. Here's a typical answer: Currently Cinema Grade supports Intel CPUs only.“M1” Silicon support is under negotiation at the moment.Best regards,Nikita / Customer Support Manager
BobKrist wrote: ...received replies to these inquiries from Ripple Training, Coremelt, Cinema Grade and Reelsmart Motion Blur to the effect that the ball is not in their court, they are waiting for some kind of permission or key from Apple to effect the upgrade...
I believe it's not "permission" from Apple but some unresolved issue with the FxPlug 4 framework (which Apple provides).
In general, template-based plugins will run on Apple Silicon now. Those can be useful and may visually appear elaborate, but internally they are implemented as a Motion document. That document exists as a .moti, .moef, etc. file. The directives in that file are apparently processed by a Motion runtime engine within FCP.
More complex plugins (CoreMelt, Neat Video, Color Finale, etc) are written in Objective-C or Swift and built with Apple's FxPlug 3 framework. Unlike template plugins they exist as compiled multithreaded executable binaries. This enables much higher performance, programmer-controlled multithreaded operation, and more flexible UI elements.
FxPlug 3 plugins cannot run on Apple Silicon (as a plugin) because they are x86 code, and Rosetta2 cannot handle intermixed ARM64 and x86 code within the same process. The only stopgap would be force FCP to run under Rosetta2 emulation under Apple Silicon, then it could probably use the existing x86 plugins. However it would all be emulated, so a likely performance issue: www.howtogeek.com/702982/how-to-launch-t...pp-on-apple-silicon/
To run natively on Apple Silicon, the updated FxPlug 4 framework is required. It has many improvements including running 3rd-party plugin code in a separate process so it's less likely to crash FCP. It also has more control over threading, rendering and UI aspects. Thus in theory a version of Neat Video written for FxPlug 4 will be more responsive, show fewer beach balls, etc.
Unfortunately there is apparently some holdup in the final version of the FXPlug 4 framework needed for FCP plugins to be fully ported. I don't know the details or expected timeframe.
I am not a developer, I am not under Apple NDA of any sort currently, but I do a lot of beta testing for several developers, and I can share that FxPlug4 has some major bugs Apple needs to work out.
As previously stated, Apple is restricting third-party plugins to only run on FxPlug4, and it's not ready.
As stated, it's a new format using the XPC protocol, a way for two separate processes to communicate with each other on the same system. Which, as stated already, should improve performance and stability. developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2011/206/
FxPlug4 will run (when fixed) on both Intel and SOC Macs. And Apple is being very demanding everything be FxPlug4 across the board. But... bugs...