Render Crash

[EoinArmstrong]

Hi folks.

I attempted to render the .tgd below with a 4096x4096 WM2 terrain.  The number of instances (I think) is less than 35000. 

I attempted a render with 0.8 qual, 4 AA, 4 GI det, 3 GI blur, atmo 64 samples - resolution of 1680x1050.

My rig is 3Ghz Quad Core with 3GB RAM on Win XP SP3 (32-bit).

After a 3.5 hours it sadly fell over.  I've included the .tgd and took a screenie too.  I'm also attempting to re-render at 1024x768, but this doesn't particularly suit me...

Cheers,

Eoin.

[EoinArmstrong]

Changed the quality to .775 and size to 1024x768 and it rendered in 2.25 hours.

[neuspadrin]

Looks like the usual running out of memory error while rendering error with object populations.

[Oshyan]

Agreed, looks like a memory-related error. In the future it would be helpful to also open Task Manager and take a screenshot of the Processes tab as that will show more conclusively what your memory use was like at the time of the crash.

In any case your GI detail is probably overkill, so you can reduce that and save some memory use. Also, have you changed the cache size at all? You might try reducing it to 200MB. And of course make sure no other memory-hungry apps are running.

- Oshyan

[EoinArmstrong]

Cheers folks - I'll try to remember all that

[Raijin]

I wonder if there is a way to determine the approximate number of subdivisions that will be used in the rendering process.

The available RAM divided by number of subdivision could give a good lower bound for the usage in the subdivision cache. I'm aware of the fact, that the resolution has a high impact on the overall used memory in this process, so maybe the subdivisions a related to the resolution.

There will be some more hours before I can test some things by myself, so I would really appreciate, if some who has this knowledge could share it.

Ps: sorry for my strange English. I'm not very used to it.

[Oshyan]

The cache size is set fairly optimally for most scenes. I'm not sure the time needed to develop a prediction solution for varying the cache would be worthwhile given how broadly applicable the current settings are. This is really only a problem in the short-term until we have 64 bit support, at which point everyone will be strongly advised to upgrade (it's about time anyway), and that will basically solve many of these problems. Of course there will always be limits...

- Oshyan

[teiger]

I cant render a picture, too
System is Q6600 4x 2,4GHZ  3GB RAM Vista 32bit
I need a resolution of 8192x8192, but it always crashed at the beginning :/
Cloud/atmosphare samples are 40, quality 0.9, AA 2
Dont want to render it on my Notebook, it only have a dual core 2,4 but on the notebook it works well

... If I render a picter in 1024x1024 with 40 Cloud samples and then I want to render it in 4096x4096 .. is it needed to increase the samples to 160, to get the same quality?



sry for my english :S

[neuspadrin]

I cant render a picture, too
System is Q6600 4x 2,4GHZ  3GB RAM Vista 32bit
I need a resolution of 8192x8192, but it always crashed at the beginning :/
Cloud/atmosphare samples are 40, quality 0.9, AA 2
Dont want to render it on my Notebook, it only have a dual core 2,4 but on the notebook it works well

... If I render a picter in 1024x1024 with 40 Cloud samples and then I want to render it in 4096x4096 .. is it needed to increase the samples to 160, to get the same quality?



sry for my english :S

bolded the issues.  If you want to do something that big you most likely will need to do it in multiple crops, especially if there are any populations of models in that render.

as for cloud samples, a lot of that is relative to what kinda cloud you are rendering.  some require wayyy less samples.  however, the number of samples is relative from what i know, so at higher resolution you dont NEED more samples, its just more likely that you will notice any errors at the higher resolutions that you wouldnt notice at lower ones because the error is so small.

also atmosphere samples make a difference too.

[Oshyan]

Neuspadrin is correct, rendering at 8192x8192 is quite demanding. You would almost certainly need a 64 bit OS for it to work, and depending on scene complexity, you may still have problems. Future 64 bit support will help with this type of demanding render. You also don't need to increase cloud samples at higher resolution.

- Oshyan

[Dune]

With these sizes it would be handy to render in parts, and not just cropped renders. That would take as much RAM I believe. I once entered a topic about camera adjustments to get 2-4 (or more) overlapping POV's, render them as smaller parts and stitch the whole scene together. The way you make panoramic photographs. Never got to implementing such, though.
Problem is that if you aim your camera and want the first 1/4 of the scene, you'd have to move the camera, or work with 'tele', which distorts. So, I don't know if this would be feasible.

---Dune

[teiger]

Ok thx for your help.
My Notebook (Vaio Z11 Wn/B, Win7 RC1 x64) is already rendering about 23h >_> I think it goes up ti 40h, mhm I need my owen quad core xD

I think i should search a little bit "to render in parts" ^^

[neuspadrin]

yeh the problem with rendering crops even at that big is you would still need to set it to calculate the gi for the entire scene, not cropped region to get the lighting right, which at that large might still run out of ram.