Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You're not likely to get 2.4 million faces rendered in a 32 bit environment with textures. There's not enough memory space available. This isn't a DS or 3Delight issue, just an issue of too much geometry for the environment.
If it isn't in your viewport, delete it from the scene. Seriously. You've got a whole bunch of poly's that are doing nothing for you except using memory.
Kendall
At least in Windows...
I just tried something...a simple cube, 1 division (so that's 6 faces/polys), then I went and added SubD to it...and didn't crash until I hit 10 levels (if my math is right that should be over 60 million polys-equivalent). I could watch the amount of RAM being used with each click of the division level. But then again, I'm running in Linux/WINE which has much more robust memory management than Windows (yes, 32 bit DS, even some people can get 64 bit DS to run, I can't...). I'd imagine that Windows would give up the ghost somewhere between 1 and 2 million polys, based on previous experience. I'm not sure I could have successfully rendered it, in DS with that level of SubD applied. (Successfully rendered a cube with 9 levels of SubD...or if my math is right about 10 million+)...tried to repeat on the Windows box...crashes and won't render at 8 (just under 2 million)...and it's 64 bit Win7/DS 4 with 4 GB of RAM..
You may not actually be running out of memory...but you are definitely running out of 'addresses'. Basically, it's not getting put into memory because there is no place to put it, on a 32 bit system, because there aren't enough addresses available to assign any more. And when something tries to access the 'not there' geometry, it's just like you ran out of physical memory...and 'poof' it crashes.
32 bit OSs were never designed to run at or near the 4 GB hard limit they have, especially Windows (Win2K may have been an exception to that) but XP was not...and even 32 bit Vista and Win7 are not all that great at managing the 4 GB memory. I'd say there is little to no chance of getting something that big to render, in Windows, without problems.
Windows memory management has never been extremely robust and is prone to all sorts of problems...which, cause lots of BSODs (crashes) which usually get blamed on the software being used...
Another thing is the way Windows shuffles things off to virtual memory (swap/disk cache/etc). It will prevent core components of Windows from going there, at all costs, even if it means shoving parts of the program that is needing memory to virtual memory...and lots of programs don't deal very well with that. Or it will move the data that's needed off to virtual...which kind of defeats loading it to memory in the first place. Again, that causes problems, usually in timing, because the data isn't where it needs to be, because it's still being read from a hard disk, so things pile up waiting and the program has actually moved on and the data that's being read is no longer wanted...but is still needed (recipe for a crash)...ReadyBoost helps in those situations, because it is a lot faster than a hard drive, but ReadyBoost is only available in Vista and later, and Vista's implementation isn't all that good.
It looks like the 'magic number' is actually between 2 and 2.5 million on a Windows box (I was a bit low...). And it isn't really about how much memory the scene uses as loaded...it's how much/how many addresses it's going to need when crunch time comes (hit the render button).
There is an answer for 32 bit Windows...don't let the program/data it needs get anywhere near needing more than 2 GB of memory...preferably less than 1.5 GB. That way Windows itself won't panic and start shuffling everything off to virtual memory or run out of address space or, or, or...
And that's for systems with 4 GB of physical RAM...to translate it into something more general. Don't let any single program/data use more than between 45 and 50 percent of the physical RAM, especially on 32 bit XP. 32 bit Vista/Win7 no more than 55 to 60 percent (with or without ReadyBoost). What that means for DS users on 32 bit Windows machines (especially XP)...small, simple scenes without a high, dense poly count. Basically, the software and the memory it needs have evolved beyond what 32 bit Windows is capable of handling.
And, yes, there needs to be memory available for things like tdlmake to run, too...
In some cases, you can get scenes that crash to render in the stand alone 3Delight without any problems whatsoever...if Studio is also not running at the time. Because the stand alone is without a UI is much less resource intensive and will have a smaller footprint...
Again, I tell you that it is your system that is the issue.
Here's DS with the same cube you referenced earlier, at subdivision 11 on my system. Yes, it renders just fine.
There are two primary factors.
1) Having enough physical RAM to handle the subdivision. DS despises virtual RAM in the Windows environment.
2) Waiting for SubDivision to complete prior to attempting to render. SubDividing is a single threaded process in DS, so it took my system about 2 minutes to go from subD-10 to subD-11 (an increase of 1.4GB of RAM in use to 5.5GB btw).
In Javier's case, I think the problem is more about the textures attached to the poly's than the number of poly's. 2.4M is just about the upper limit of 32 bit storage. Adam's 2.1M will actually fit decently. I've forced 3-4M into a Wine32 session of Windows, but a native Win32 craps out at around 2.5M for me on a perfectly new WinXP/32 install with no cruft at all. Vista/32 will make it to 2.1M and then will start getting flaky. Win7/32 about 2.2M and things start getting a bit tight.
Obviously, Quads will take more space than tri's, so the nature of the model's polys will make a difference. A model made of completely Triangles will fit more poly's into the scene before things get antsy. Also, the number of nodes will make a large difference as well. An imported .OBJ made completely of Triangles with a single group will take less memory than a fully rigged model with multiple groups and bones.
The moment one starts attaching textures to the poly's, all bets are off on the point of the crash.
To answer Javier's question about environment: A machine with a 64 bit capable chipset and CPU, a 64 bit OS, and about 4G of memory will get you where you need to be. Any more than that and things will get progressively better.
Kendall
Hello:
I entered in this theme about the faces because you said me that maybe I am out of the limits. But what happens with this ?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ya36sK4LY
This is a previous render with a very nearly to the end model, and can be rendered like the last model at quality level 3. And with the same faces.
I am in a mixture of your points. I believe that the shader of the level 4 has an added process with a pointer of an array of surfaces that goes out. But this is only an opinion.
In any case the question is. Can anybody warrant to me that if I pass DS 4.5 and all this to a Windows 7 64 with more memory... this will can be rendered without problems ? Or I must to go to other 3d application ?
Javier
"Level 3" as you are talking about is NOT the real renderer for DS. It is an OpenGL render. which uses your video card and has half (or less) the true functions/capabilities of what DS is. So, yes, depending on your card, you can fit 'more' into a scene than for a 3Delight render. The video card sort of extends the amount of memory available (no it can't break the 4 GB hard limit of the 32 bit world, though).
With "Level 4" there is no 'extra process', it just drops the video card completely out of the equation, so any 'extra' from it is gone and you are now relying totally on physical RAM and Windows...that's the price of quality. And that's not even getting into the fact that 'default' barely hits the start level of 'high quality'.
As Kendall, Adam and I pointed out, it is possible to squeak out a little more with Windows, but with textures added the 'breaking point' is very had to determine. Kendall and I run Linux and use WINE to get DS working. One of us MAY be able to get that scene to render in DS, with chances increasing by dumping the scene to a file that would render in stand alone 3Delight renderer, but even then, it is doubtful, in a 32 bit world.
Switching to a 64 bit Windows with 6 or more GB of RAM...should render without a problem.
The way things are now...that scene, with that number of polys and those textures is just too much for XP/32 bit/4 GB of RAM. It's like expecting a fast-food restaurant to turn out 5-star French cuisine.
I have successfully run DS4.5 in Wine64, but it was not plug-n-play. :-) I wouldn't recommend it quite yet for day-to-day operations, but it does *mostly* work.
As for rendering under Windows. That scene can probably be rendered in 4G of RAM, if hosted in a 64 bit environment. I wouldn't guarantee it, as I wouldn't guarantee anything in Windows. However, it *should* work.
With that being said, there are other methods that would probably get it working in his 32 bit environment. For instance, replacing the snow-covered polygons' texture with a white procedural, or even an off white diffuse. Lowering the texture resolution for the ground/mountains as they are background objects. Etcetera.
I'm going to say something that I hope isn't taken the wrong way: the refusal to modify the environment for the scene(s) is the problem here. I do understand that the landscape represents a significant amount of work and that he's, rightfully, very proud of it. However, those parts that are off-camera are useless. If one allows unseen detail to foil one's work, then what use is having the project? It would be trivial to create a copy of the landscape, remove those parts that would never be exposed to the camera during a range of scenes, and render with it. As other parts of the landscape become visible, then one just loads another copy of the landscape that contains the pertinent part of the detail. Repeat as necessary. This may get him within the rendering range of his current system. In addition, since this is an aerial scene, there will be no shadows to worry about, so rendering separately and compositing is a perfectly legitimate solution.
Kendall
I understand.
You are cautious :lol: I would not guarantee anything in Windows.
I understand you well Kendall. I could render the mountains in another scene and compose everything later with a Chrome effect. And that are so big or beech not visible parts in the render owes to having a scene what could be re-used in different travelings taking advantage of different perspectives over the same model. ( 2.500.000 faces )
The problem is as I showed you only the plane. Alone in a empty scene. Too much detailed / fragmented in the cockpit / noise to permit very nearly camera's takes. And with only this, was needed to be dismantled testing between piece and piece deleted from the scene to see where it could be rendered. The result was ( 700.000 faces )
If 700.000 faces are a problem, then DAZ has a problem. I could deactivate my firewall/antivirus, that is the only other process active in the machine appart from DAZ. But as I tried before this only solve the problem a little to 800.000 ? 900.000 faces ?
I see you convinced that it will work with a W7 64. I will do it and we will see.
On more thing. Is not there a whole between free or cheap programs and too much expensive 3D programs ?
Javier
I own Maya as well as many of the "big boys." In a 32 bit environment, everyone is limited. It's the nature of the beast. I don't even attempt Maya in a 32 bit environment anymore, period. I have the Linux Native 64 bit version, and it does the job. However, of all the software I have for 3D, DS and Carrara are, by far, the two that we are most productive with. It is just so simple (and fast) to put out storyboards, proposed keyframes, etc using DS4 and C8.5. The others require a great deal of setup before work can actually get moving. Most of this work we're currently doing using DAZ's stuff. If things keep progressing at the pace they are, Maya may end up with limited use.
Kendall
As I was reading this thread, I mistook the talk about levels with Subdivision of objects in DAZ Studio. I opted to increase the default from 2 on a simple strawberry object, so that it would get better details from a displacement-map I generated from the texture-map. From level 2 to 4, things went fine. But when I clicked to level 5, my machine hogged all memory (8 Gigabytes in a 64-bit Windows 7 environment), and became unresponsive. I don't dare to think of how many polygons I had in that scene, and how much subdividing an already complex model had overall. But before I did so, I saved the scene, and made a mental check of the memory-footprint (as you call it), which went up to around 3.5 Gigabytes. So, memory alone isn't the answer, but how you optimize the scene. You need to think like a game developer, Javier.
I tested 3DMAX in this same machine. But it is too much complex for me, and of course expensive if you don't have a bussines to take profit of it. I let appart the farm of PCs that can be needed.
I am very lost with regard to the available software. I see that Autodesk has so much variety of products and to such prices that it is not viable except that you are a producer.
Blender, Maya, AutoCAD, 3DMAX....
My question, is it for what you use another software? Already I know that there are effects of atmosphere, lights, dust movement, water, etc, etc ... but we speak about additional effects. Said differently, really would you use 3delight as final shader appart from other aditional effects ?
Javier
First: Blender is not owned by Autodesk. It is OpenSource and free for everybody.
Second: Why do I use other software? Well, every application has its strengths and weaknesses. I'm a firm believer in using the best (or close to the best) tool for the job. "Best" is determined by how well, and how quickly, a particular task can be completed. Where the "big boys" fail is in the lack of prefab models. The prevailing attitude in that market is that one will create one's own models, or one will pay big bucks for minimalist models and "bend them to your will." One cannot get much done that way unless one has a great deal of resources (people as well as money).
DS and Carrara provide for a method to use low cost, but mid to high quality, models and quickly lay out scenes. This ability puts these above the others simply because we can get more completed. However, DS and Carrara cannot compete with some of the Visual FX (yet) available in the more expensive packages.
3Delight (3DL) is very useful is that it is a fully RiSpec renderer. I can use the 3Delight renderer from DS and also from Maya. I'm hoping that soon, DAZ will allow Carrara to use 3DL for consistency. Renderman is still what is used in the "industry" and 3Delight allows access to that tech.
Kendall
Norse...
Yes, but if I think as a game developer i will begin to think to avoid this and that, and to lighten this and reducing details on that. I am beginning to think that to render a so easy model like mine, this is too much complicated.
I am not making the Titanic or the Prometheus. But to be very sincere with you, this is why I was asking Kendall him on other systems. Because I am afraid about my so humble project, seems too ambitious for the software that I handle.
More machine ? well... More ? well.... but finnally.... more powerfull software ?????
Javier
More? Why is the first answer everybody jumps to is "More."
The solution is not always more. There are situations where more is the correct answer, but not as often as most think.
In your (Javier) case, you could probably get by with the Standalone 3Delight coupled with outputting the scene to RIB. Is this optimal? Probably not. It's likely to take a great deal of time.
I've already laid out several "more optimal" solutions and won't repeat them here.
If you're bound and determined that the scene MUST contain everything, and MUST run from within the software, then you are going to need a 64 bit environment. Which level is up to your budget.
As for software, your scene will require significant work to import into another package. More than the previous methods combined.
Kendall
It is a bad custom Kendall. As software developer a lot of years ago, I came from an age when the things goes fine or not. This is, are good or bad. Runs or fail. And there was not middle points.
In serious software for bussines we never sell a software that for example let you to enter 2.500.000 clients, for later say to the user that he can't create invoices for them... because he has entered too much clients. :lol::lol::lol:In that case we would limit the number of clients to avoid the user lose time making a work that is mining his own work.
Is not a question about must or must not use my work. It is a question about a user have made that work spending hours, and that cost effort and money. A correct developer value the work of their users. If not, is not a profesional. Is only a child playing to program.
There is a golden rule that someone has forgotten. "The software is maked to help you. Not for make you work for it.". The other is ( was ) "If something does not run well, don't put it".
I only wanted to model and render. But since June I have been learning what is msvcrt.dll, msvc90.dll, msvc100.dll, the DLL HELL, the WinSxS system, The .NET framework problems with the C++ redistributable updates 2005, 2008 and 2010, the corruption of the side-by-side libraries tables, and much more. I didn't want to know what is 3delight. I know it because has appeared in the great part of my errors. And if this is a robust technology, well... I can't work.
I have download today the Reality 2, and now when I try to load an .OBJ with Hexagon, appears an error saying that there is a problem with MSVC90.dll.%-P
The third golden rule is that a program that crash without its own controls to avoid it, is a ..... yes. I can't put the word here. Sorry. Is not an insult. The profesionals know that a crash it is the most evident sample of bad software.
If my software has errors, my clients don't want explanations. They say me that they don't want programming courses. That they want sollutions. Well, this is the difference.
Javier