[feature suggestion] Checking minimum hardware requrements

It would be good to have simla pp that would run and check if PC matches minimum harware requirements.

Recent updates raised GPU requirements. If user updates but updated version requres better hardware, then user is in rouble and thing get complicated.

There is no way for user to instal new version separately to test it out. It must be update that overwrites previous version.

So, if we can check if Pc matches hardware requrements before updating that would be really helpful.

This if course means a lot to amateur users that by definiton are on the edge of hardware they use. It also can server well for people who tend to install DR first time, so they can check first and not go to full install to find out that DR will not work.

Isn't a common practice to include minimum and recommended system / hardware requirements on product page of most products? There is off course a margin for safety from the company, so usually even bellow minimum requirements, it can still work for some tasks.

Other than with operating systems, you can easily go back with DR, and on the first installation it is checking your hardware for minimum requirements.
If that is enough for you and your needs can only be judged by your own tests, there are just too many variables.

It would be lovely if Resolve would notice the hardware limit it’s running into and tell the user about it rather than failing in an inscrutable way. Error checking is a dreary but important part of programming a mass market app.

PS there’s a feature request to this effect.

It would be lovely if Resolve would notice the hardware limit it’s running into and tell the user about it rather than failing in an inscrutable way. Error checking is a dreary but important part of programming a mass market app.

I've suggested for several years that Resolve go out and check during the install and tell the users, "Sorry, this system ain't gonna make it." No luck so far.

BMD has not updated the Recommended Configuration list in at least 3-4 years now, but I think the reality is that hardware is changing so fast, it's hard to provide specifics. The README file in install does have the minimum config info in it.

Might be too expensive to research and keep up to date. A system that has no serious issues with ProRes or BRAW and mild grading, might be awful with HEVC in UHD, or not even work with H.264 in 10 bit. Or crash when you need Speed Warp or maximum quality SuperScale, while others never use that. And then, multicam has challenges of its own.

Should BM suggest a massive Threadripper with a 4090 or a fully loaded Mac Studio to everybody, to be on the safe side? Currently, they give you a minimal config, which often is not sufficient, but can work for those with little money and not so challenging needs.

Unfortunately, camera manufacturers are incorporating new varieties of codecs by the hour, it seems. I'd suggest checking this forum for your specific sources and use case to see what others use successfully. Plus, Richard Lackey has a pretty good reality check only 1.5 years old: https://www.richardlackey.com/davinci-r ... uirements/

I second the need for much better handling of errors and messages when something goes wrong.

It would be lovely if Resolve would notice the hardware limit it’s running into and tell the user about it rather than failing in an inscrutable way. Error checking is a dreary but important part of programming a mass market app.

Amen! In my previous life I was responsible for software projects and code not handling errors/exceptions in a graceful and user friendly manner was not acceptable even from most junior member of the team in the previous century, much less well into the 21st century. It is far from complicated and anything else is just plainly sub-par sloppy.

I agree. HOWEVER… error checking and handling, while not conceptually hard, is actually quite a bit of code and is time consuming. So when one needs to satisfy marketing, error checking is something that can go by the wayside with marketing being still happy as a clam.

I’m not condoning - just positing a possible explanation.

I agree. HOWEVER… error checking and handling, while not conceptually hard, is actually quite a bit of code and is time consuming.

Actually, when software design is done correctly error checking ends up saving time and increasing productivity, as it is also done in areas that end user doesn't see (not checking assertions and exceptions leads to debugging nightmares). Failure to implement it is always caused by failure to follow correct development practices.

I also see the issue where the system per se does pass the minimum bar, but the user come back complaining that resolve crashes/does not work and you discover that is using 20 fusion 8 ofx, 7 AI tools, and 8k H265 10 bit files.....

had one unhappy person in the forum recently who had their project frame rate not matching camera framerate, and project settings for motion est is optical flow / speed warp / better...

and them was adding mutiple temporal OFX on top that

was unhappy with the performance, and of course it was all the broken software's fault

BMD crew have the patience of saints....

Some people really do have a bug fetish and inflated sense of entitlement of this forum, that's for sure.

I agree. HOWEVER… error checking and handling, while not conceptually hard, is actually quite a bit of code and is time consuming.

Actually, when software design is done correctly error checking ends up saving time and increasing productivity, as it is also done in areas that end user doesn't see (not checking assertions and exceptions leads to debugging nightmares). Failure to implement it is always caused by failure to follow correct development practices.

I agree. Just noting that this MIGHT be the rationale behind its frequent absence in Resolve.

Some people really do have a bug fetish and inflated sense of entitlement of this forum, that's for sure.

When cars were first invented they were complex, finicky pieces of machinery that required substantial knowledge and skill to operate. They’re much more complex now than in that time but a great deal of engineering and experience went into creating a device that’s simple and intuitive to operate.

Some may long for the days where one used to require such knowledge and resent that it’s so easy to operate a car that a novice can do it. Billions feel differently.

Same goes for cameras, “typewriters,” vacuums, etc. Being hard to use is not a feature. Wanting something to be easier to use is not laziness or a crime.

PS would you prefer it if gas and diesel pumps had the same size nozzles so an unobservant person would “get what’s coming to them?”

Some people really do have a bug fetish and inflated sense of entitlement of this forum, that's for sure.

When cars were first invented they were complex, finicky pieces of machinery that required substantial knowledge and skill to operate. They’re much more complex now than in that time but a great deal of engineering and experience went into creating a device that’s simple and intuitive to operate.

Some may long for the days where one used to require such knowledge and resent that it’s so easy to operate a car that a novice can do it. Billions feel differently.

Same goes for cameras, “typewriters,” vacuums, etc. Being hard to use is not a feature. Wanting something to be easier to use is not laziness or a crime.

PS would you prefer it if gas and diesel pumps had the same size nozzles so an unobservant person would “get what’s coming to them?”

Not sure I agree with your analogy, mainly because I think its not very good analogy to make.

Billions don't feel differently, billions don't have a choice. Because of regulation, and complexity that is mandated into cars these days, you can't fix them yourself. Not that long ago, you could buy a car and drive it for 30-40 or more years and fix it when you need to. You can't do that anymore. Now many are in debt, + interest, not even owning a complex car they need to buy to work the job to pay it off. You could in the past buy a car and own it, fix it and be proud of it. I would argue that is not what many wanted, they were not given a choice.

Are you familiar with john deere and farmers story of the last few years? That kind of problem. In the past a farmer could buy a tractor work for years and fix it, than big company made it impossible to do. More efficient or more dependent?

When car were first invented they were not as complex as you make it out to be. Many could be fixed by simple tools at home. In most communist countries even to this day that is still the case. People fix their own cars. Yugo, Lada etc. Are like AK-47. When I was still a kid , virtually every house had a garage with tools to fix a car and a dip to go under the car as part of garage. Almost every man, woman and child knew how to change a tire. Not so much today.

It was a matter of pride to be able to maintain your own car. Now they regulated and automate it to the point where if your window is stuck you can't fix it by yourself, because you have to get a code from service company. Its insane. And way too much regulation, where they kill the perfectly drivable cars before they have to, just so some bureaucrat could virtue signal.

Hardly a matter of progress in my view. Made us more dependent, not less.

Its one thing to argue for something to be more efficient, but I just don't think this car analogy is good analogy for that. With a better analogy, I would agree. More efficient can be better, although it can also be a double edge sword. Because the more you rely on something the less you work on your own muscles. Look at obese people around you. Just half a century ago, you would be hard press to find some in the street, now they are like 2/3 of population in some places. Does home food delivery, easy fast food and driving to restaurants really has no downsides.

As the Japanese like to say. The reverse side also has a reverse side. You want a healthy balance between more efficient, but less dependent. Otherwise you end up paying the price in the long run.

had one unhappy person in the forum recently who had their project frame rate not matching camera framerate, and project settings for motion est is optical flow / speed warp / better...

and them was adding mutiple temporal OFX on top that

was unhappy with the performance, and of course it was all the broken software's fault

BMD crew have the patience of saints....

Yes and no. Right now the top post is someone with a decent PC who can't get playback on a clip with a wav file. That's it. Nothing else. I was working on a project in v19 with no fx at all, no color grading, only 2 short fusion comps that were rendered in place and the rest was BRAW. I was getting 1-3pfs playback. I can run any 3D software or any game at full speed and full quality no issue. I keep my nvmes at less than half full so there aren't really any excuses. My BM disk speed shows good for everything but 12k H.264 @60. So yes, there are problems. A pop up error that specifies the problem would... solve problems.

BMD having patience isn't great when we have clients who don't have patience, the software doesn't work and there is zero customer service.

That said, I don't think it makes much sense to have Resolve take the time to check the hardware on every start up. That'll only increase the load time. The requirements are documented and if it works the first time, it'll work every time.

When cars were first invented they were complex, finicky pieces of machinery that required substantial knowledge and skill to OPERATE. They’re much more complex now than in that time but a great deal of engineering and experience went into creating a device that’s simple and intuitive to OPERATE.

Some may long for the days where one used to require such knowledge and resent that it’s so easy to OPERATE a car that a novice can do it. Billions feel differently.
…

Because of regulation, and complexity that is mandated into cars these days, you can't FIX them yourself. Not that long ago, you could buy a car and drive it for 30-40 or more years and FIX it when you need to. You can't do that anymore.
…
When car were first invented they were not as complex as you make it out to be. Many could be FIXED by simple tools at home.

Notice how I highlighted OPERATE in my post that you quoted and FIX in your reply? That’s because I was talking about operating a car. It’s certainly not reasonable to say I’m wrong because FIXING a car is now harder.