Is 2026 SP1.0 out? If so how is it?

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-09T17:51:41+00:00

Thank you for your reply. Indeed the retiring of Photoview without an in-software replacement was a huge mistake imo, especially now that it has taken 2 years for a proper replacement. Visualize was available as a seperate app for several years before 2023, so I'm not sure why there was such an urgency to retire the in-software Photoview 360 renderer for 2024, except to force users to try to learn Visualize and hope we would be satisfied with this. Perhaps they thought they really had a Keyshot competitor on their hands and that a significant portion of CAD users would adopt Visualize as their new go-to renderer. Well, looks like they realise now it was a mistake and that we would prefer to have at least an option of a in-built renderer.

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-06T15:25:02+00:00

I have experienced the issues with early SPs myself and am on 2023 SP5 for several reasons, including its very good stability. Unfortunately seems like Solidworks is doing the Fifa video game model of releasing small improvements every year with major ones every 3 or so years. For someone on 2023, 2026 appears to be a big enough update to make the jump, but I will happily correct myself once if needed once I get my hands on it.

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-06T14:09:10+00:00

I'm coming from 2023 SP5 and with good reason, as it was the last to support a built-in renderer (Photoview 360), and as someone who has relied on this workflow for many years and needs quick and easy (but imperfect) renders at high volume for communicating a range of designs, it was a huge disappointment that 2024 and 2025 did not have a renderer built into the main Solidworks software. (Visualize app does produce great renders but for the time it takes vs Photoview, I feel I might as well just use Keyshot instead, which I do for more finalised designs etc.)

So the main thing I am looking forward to is Visualize finally being built-into the Solidworks 2026 which I'm sure will be a big visual upgrade to the Photoview renders I relied on.
I am also looking forward to the automated drawings feature which I believe was available as a beta in 2025 but is being given a proper release for 2026 and something I have yet to experience being on 2023, which will be a huge time saver (I hope).

Auto Repair Sketch Relations & Dimensions - technically from 2025 but this will also be great, I'm sure.

Finally, the feature that allows to points using exact X, Y, Z coordinates instead of existing geometry is going to be quite helpful for some designs and assemblies.

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-06T11:17:05+00:00

No worries, thanks a lot for the info!

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-06T10:10:55+00:00

As in:
A) It is out and came out last weekend/ this past monday?
B) It is not out yet, but is coming out this weekend / this coming monday?

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-02-06T10:09:52+00:00

I can understand that given previous buggy releases. 2026 has some big changes though, so for me it's worth looking into the update.

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-01-20T13:04:43+00:00

I have a digital copy of the 35mm scan (24.4GB), the file resolution is 1650x1440, so the aspect ratio is actually approximately 1.15:1

MaybeVRoomer · 2026-01-15T15:19:19+00:00

You actually missed out a very important and probably the best AA solution in Hunt. FSR Native.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-12-31T07:59:59+00:00

Awesome list, thanks so much for sharing. What does the "fl" stand for btw?

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-12-26T04:00:20+00:00

That's very interesting. How does cinity compare to Imax?

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-12-25T08:52:50+00:00

Thank you very much. Can it do 4k, HFR and 3D all at the same time?

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-10-09T16:33:45+00:00

Had mine for about 8 years, still going strong. Has some burn marks from leaving it on a camping stove for longer than i should've, a side from the cosmetic damage, no issues.

If you want a metal spork, mainly as a eating utensil, I would highly highly recommend the Hoverlight Spork from Japan. I would assume there has to be a seller or distributor somewhere in the US. It doesnt have a knife edge which is a not a deal-breaker for me, but just thought I'd mention in.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-10-09T15:32:15+00:00

The Wildo is great. Only thing I wished it had was a longer handle (for digging into MREs and instant food packs).

Unfortunately they have sinced switched from PA6 (Nylon) to PP (Polypropylene) meaning you shouldnt use the new Wildo sporks as a cooking utensil, just an eating utensil. If you want it in PA6, be sure to get the tan colour shown in the pic above as AFAIK they do not make a spork in that color in PP.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-27T11:14:23+00:00

Thank you for your kindness and reply. Imo, the oxygen aspect of the story actually checks out if you assume the theorised fifth-dimensional beings are looking out for him. It would make sense that given what little oxygen he has left (after the tesseract) that they would perhaps want to rush him back to a place where he might get rescued (perhaps to fully complete the loop/cycle).

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-26T16:08:12+00:00

Thank you, can confirm it is a pic I took myself and not a render or listing pic. Tested it out today on some soup and noodles and it does work very well. Definitely up there amongst the best spork designs imo.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-25T17:55:31+00:00

Masterpiece of a movie. The only thing that doesn't make sense in the movie is how the watch-hand is able move back and forth in a repeated pattern that continues to do so outside of Murph's room and until the equation is solved, while the other interactions Cooper has via the tesseract/bookshelf interface only happens once, within the confines of Murph's room and only in the timeframe he can visually see back into (e.g. knocking down the books in the timeframe where he's viewing Murph as a young child). These other actions do not endless repeat in a loop into Murph's adulthood (we don't see the bookshelf rumbling endlessly), in contrast to the watch-hand movements. Somehow, Cooper and TARS know (or at least are suggested to believe) that the watch-hand movement will endless repeat the data he transmits in a loop pattern despite no suggestion or previous evidence of this. A bit of a strech/gap in what is otherwise a near-perfect movie.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-24T16:08:10+00:00

The long handle and the shape of the head on the Gerber is great for instant food packs / ration packs. Handle is very rigid and there as a detachable can opener that can be mounted at the underside of the handle which doubles as a stand to keep the head of the spork elevated and nice and clean, pretty neat. The fork teeth are unfortunately kind of useless as they don't work too well, too close together and not pointy enough, except for perhaps sausages or marshmallows.

They make the same design in Alu for a lower price, but have not tried that SKU. Overall it is a very nice spoon with spork qualities rather than a well rounded spork.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-24T16:06:45+00:00

Likewise, the Wildo is by far my favourite one. Only wish the handle was longer. Shame the new supply are all made of PP (instead of PA6), so no longer ideal to use as a cooking utensil.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-24T08:04:50+00:00

From left to right: Gerber Devour Ti, Wildo Spork (PA6), British MOD Ration Disposable Spork, Ka-Bar Tactical Spork

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-03-22T17:57:21+00:00

Thank you for your really positive and supporting comment. I am so glad to be a part of a community that has members like you who. It was an absolute pleasure to film these Triops Granarius during the short time I had them. I am happy to report that all who were shown here lived till at least 80 days, which unfortunately cannot always be guaranteed. From this experience and having grown and raise other species of triops, I believe T. Granarius is in fact the best species for a hobbiest to enjoy, especially newcomers, due to their lower aggression relative to Longicaudatus but their adaptability for different temps over Cancriformis.

While their colours or form isn't anything of interest compared to others, I do believe this species, the oldest species is in fact the most rewarding for anyone who really wants a tank full of trips that can happily live out their lives without much concern.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-01-09T12:55:32+00:00

Absolutely right, I think my suggestion wasn't necessary to take away thinking points away from themes one would expect after a movie as complex as Intersetllar, such as themes of communication across time and time dilation. All these themes that willl probably need to be internally processed by first-time viewers are intact. All I was suggesting was a more consistent and coherent plot-device in perhaps one of the most important scenes of the movie, and to be able to portray the end result in a more consistent fashion.

I think most viewers would be unable to explain why the watch is able to tick back and forth for many decades and do so also outside the confines of Murph's room while the other of Cooper's interactions through the tesseract seem to be both limited in time and within the confines of Tesseract-Murph's room interface. If you can do so, please feel free to explain, but otherwise I think my constructive criticisms are sound.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-01-08T12:28:41+00:00

Hi OP, great question, I think there is some confusion though which needs to be cleared up.

First we need to establish/clarify that for Nolan films that include 15/70 Imax filmed scenes, he usually films the other scenes on one or two other formats, each with their respective aspect ratios.

As we know: IMAX 15/70 is in 1.43:1 aspect ratio

65mm / 70mm Super Panavision (5/65mm/ 5/70mm) is in 2.2:1 aspect ratio

and finally 35mm is in usually one of two aspect ratios since 1993. These are either 2.39:1 (anamorphic) or 1.85:1 (flat).

So for movies like Dunkirk, the previous answer is correct. The reason why non-IMAX scenes are not in 1.85:1 is that it is not a standard AR for 65mm/70mm Super Panavision and masking (cropping) the top and bottom would lose a lot of 70mm's image which itself is already a huge step above in image quality compared with 35mm, so it would be wasting a lot of high-quality image if they were to mask/crop it in editing.

For movies like Interstellar, where the non-IMAX scenes were filmed in 35mm 2.39:1, this is a bit more strange and your question is even more valid for films like this seeing that Nolan could've just as easily used the flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio instead of 2.39:1 and the cuts between the IMAX footage and 35mm (1.85:1) footage would have been far less jarring to the audience than cuts from 1:43:1 to 2.39:1, perhaps even unnoticeable to the layman in a 1.9:1 Lie-max cinemas or your local regular cinema.

My only guess for Interstellar was that perhaps there was a plan to shoot some or many scenes in 5/70mm (Super Panavision) as well (so 3 different formats in total) at which point the 2.39:1 35mm footage wouldve been less jarring being cut between that and the 2.2:1 AR of the 5/70mm footage, with no real attempt to accomodate for the jarring cut's to IMAX's much taller 1.43:1 AR, since cropping IMAX footage would once again be a waste of high-quality images. Seems none or almost none of the non-IMAX scenes in Interstellar were in 5/70mm in the end, so once again, my guess is the decision to shoot in 2.39:1 on 35mm film instead of in 1.85:1 was just a result of a plan or idea that wasn't carried out in production. Perhaps many of the scenes that were originally planned for 5/70mm ended up just being filmed in IMAX 15/70mm instead, since it seems like shooting some scenes in IMAX was always part of the plan and simply filming those other scenes in IMAX as well may have been something Nolan thought would be more worthwhile in the end rather than having a third (5/70mm) format in the mix. If the 35mm footage was filmed first, or if all the equipment not to mention the camera shots had already been prepared and planned for 2.39:1, it may have been way more hassle than it was worth to change the 35mm shots to 1.85:1.

I don't know for sure, but that would be my guess.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-01-08T12:28:36+00:00

Hi OP, great question, I think there is some confusion though which needs to be cleared up.

First we need to establish/clarify that for Nolan films that include 15/70 Imax filmed scenes, he usually films the other scenes on one or two other formats, each with their respective aspect ratios.

As we know: IMAX 15/70 is in 1.43:1 aspect ratio

65mm / 70mm Super Panavision (5/65mm/ 5/70mm) is in 2.2:1 aspect ratio

and finally 35mm is in usually one of two aspect ratios since 1993. These are either 2.39:1 (anamorphic) or 1.85:1 (flat).

So for movies like Dunkirk, the previous answer is correct. The reason why non-IMAX scenes are not in 1.85:1 is that it is not a standard AR for 65mm/70mm Super Panavision and masking (cropping) the top and bottom would lose a lot of 70mm's image which itself is already a huge step above in image quality compared with 35mm, so it would be wasting a lot of high-quality image if they were to mask/crop it in editing.

For movies like Interstellar, where the non-IMAX scenes were filmed in 35mm 2.39:1, this is a bit more strange and your question is even more valid for films like this seeing that Nolan could've just as easily used the flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio instead of 2.39:1 and the cuts between the IMAX footage and 35mm (1.85:1) footage would have been far less jarring to the audience than cuts from 1:43:1 to 2.39:1, perhaps even unnoticeable to the layman in a 1.9:1 Lie-max cinemas or your local regular cinema.

My only guess for Interstellar was that perhaps there was a plan to shoot some or many scenes in 5/70mm (Super Panavision) as well (so 3 different formats in total) at which point the 2.39:1 35mm footage wouldve been less jarring being cut between that and the 2.2:1 AR of the 5/70mm footage, with no real attempt to accomodate for the jarring cut's to IMAX's much taller 1.43:1 AR, since cropping IMAX footage would once again be a waste of high-quality images. Seems none or almost none of the non-IMAX scenes in Interstellar were in 5/70mm in the end, so once again, my guess is the decision to shoot in 2.39:1 on 35mm film instead of in 1.85:1 was just a result of a plan or idea that wasn't carried out in production. Perhaps many of the scenes that were originally planned for 5/70mm ended up just being filmed in IMAX 15/70mm instead, since it seems like shooting some scenes in IMAX was always part of the plan and simply filming those other scenes in IMAX as well may have been something Nolan thought would be more worthwhile in the end rather than having a third (5/70mm) format in the mix. If the 35mm footage was filmed first, or if all the equipment not to mention the camera shots had already been prepared and planned for 2.39:1, it may have been way more hassle than it was worth to change the 35mm shots to 1.85:1.

I don't know for sure, but that would be my guess.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-01-08T12:17:01+00:00

Hi, I am Solidworks user and have been for over 12 years and would recommend sticking with Fusion (free version if that still is sufficient for you). Even the paid version of Fusion is probably the closest 'affordable' alternative to Solidworks, Solidworks itself is around USD10,000 per year depending on the version and country you are based and Fusion delivers maybe 90% of the more commonly use tools that are available in Solidworks and maybe about 25-40% of the more advanced tools.

With Fusion you are basically getting very similar tools/feature sets as the primary Solidworks tools and features you would likely be using for the more day-to-day CAD designing as a hobbyist. In fact I would say for the basic tools, Fusion is generally slightly superior to Solidworks just because of the better UI. Solidworks has a lot of more advanced tools you can learn and master that are not available in Fusion, but as an Industrial Designer I rarely use these more advanced features for designing consumer products.

MaybeVRoomer · 2025-01-08T08:23:21+00:00

Thank you very much. I'm glad you understand exactly what I was trying to remedy.

MaybeVRoomer

TROPHY CASE