Render stops

[Djb3000]

I've just disabled every object and it still does it. Spent all day on this, I cant think of any other options.

[Kadri]

That is interesting.
Just to try different things have you tested a render after you used the "Animation Check" setting in the render node?
Be careful and save the scene as a different file if needed if you try that.

[Kadri]

And there is a background node with stars. Render without it too.

[Dune]

I'll have a look today...

[Djb3000]

Thanks Dune but I might have found the problem. If I disable the tree (Clo6a Western Juniper) it seems to render OK. Just imported a new tree and trying it now.

[Djb3000]

It will render without the tree, but as soon as it (or another) is added it wont. 

[Dune]

Good that you found it, but it's strange that a tree does that. By the way, you have a simple shape with very hard edge as a basis. Better to give it just a slight soft edge (1m or so), for that may also give trouble.
You can also use a cube to sit all objects on. The sky is nice, by the way.

[Kadri]

I have seen in some extreme situations that one render bucket can take longer time to render then all of the image.
High displacements that intersect with other displacements in the image or objects etc.
It happened to me in the past.
If it is displacements you have to lower it and-or crop render that part. It renders faster that way mostly.
If it is intersecting objects use smaller size for the objects and-or place them
carefully by hand to get rid of parts that are too close or in between together.
At the same time you have to be sure that the camera doesn't intersect with the objects too.
That is another more factor to the above ones that makes for longer render times.
If you still want to render the image as it is just guessing but i think if you render your image in 2-4 or 8 cropped parts it will render probably.
And if you wait a very very long time even as it is it would render maybe.

I would try the things i wrote first.

[Djb3000]

If you still want to render the image as it is just guessing but i think if you render your image in 2-4 or 8 cropped parts it will render probably.
And if you wait a very very long time even as it is it would render maybe.

I would try the things i wrote first.

Thanks for the advice. I am trying this method. It is the tree that's causing the problem. If I render at Detail 0.1 and AA at 1 its fine. I have decided to up the values and render in parts.
I dont even think the image justifies spending all this time on it.

Thanks again

[Kadri]

...
I don't even think the image justifies spending all this time on it.
...

Not sure if it is for work or fun but the problems i got for the animation i am making now don't bother me at all for example.
That was actually the reason that i begun to render.
It was a test to see what would happen if i try to make a big project-next year probably-.
I see the problems that i find like another milestone that i have behind me rather then a inconvenience.
It is still more a test in the end then an actual short film for me.

It depends how you see it or for what you are making it of course

[Kadri]

...It is the tree that's causing the problem. If I render at Detail 0.1 and AA at 1 its fine....

By the way i don't remember a problem like this.
Have you tried a render with the same high settings but only with one of the same tree?
If it renders normal when it is alone there should be something in the way the scene is setup that is causing this problem.
I don't have the object otherwise i would have tried it myself.

[Kadri]

I had time today and tried to render your scene as it is without all the parts.
Even at 1200 x 1600 it renders very slow.
I think beside that object problem it would be good if you optimize the scene a little more as our friends here said to get faster render time.

[Djb3000]

I am working on it, but I'm still not clear why it does render so slow. The settings don't seem too extreme to me. I know its got some detailed models in it, but the tree which causes the most problems is a standard tgo import. Maybe its the lighting on the needles? I'm not sure,

[Kadri]

I just tried a crop render from the above part.

* Optimized : 6 minutes 19 seconds

* As it is : 16 minutes 04 seconds

I only changed the atmo to 32 and the two clouds to quality 0.75 and just for curiosity unchecked "cast shadows" in the background node.
That last change made only 8 seconds difference. In the whole sky and with a bigger render size it could make only for 5-10 minutes faster render time probably.
The real change is in the atmo and cloud settings like Danny said. And you could go lower too maybe.
This is for the sky part and for 1200x1600 only of course.

There is only a difference in the stars so far i see.

[Kadri]

I played a little more with the file.
I would build the terrain from scratch ones again probably.
The nodes above the "Compute terrain 01" .
The terrain changes too much to be sure.
You know your scene better and could make it better.
Especially the "Crater shader 01" looks suspicious and unneeded.
Not sure for what you used it but with a diameter of 32 thousand kilometer
it only makes the scene harder to render and the only effect is to lower the landscape from what i have seen.

The render time of a vertical crop render was with your settings at 400x533  13 minutes.
Without that nodes above the compute terrain under 2 minutes.
As i said the scene changes too much to be sure.
But if you don't have a look at that part you will have more crazy render times when the render is at the landscape level.