Welcome to the Poser Forum

Forum Moderators:  Boni, Kendra    Forum Coordinators:  darknewt, Jules53757, SpookieLilOne, gmm2

Poser F.A.Q (Updated: 2016 Nov 29 4:50 pm)


 Subject: To thfixer, and anyone interested in the effect of bucket size

destro75 opened this issue on Jul 24, 2005 · 48 posts

Top of Forum Print

  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 9:14AM Sun, 24 July 2005 · edited on 8:16PM Wed, 05 October 2005


Okay, I have done my tests on a few bucket sizes. In the end, it has strengthened my belief that you should use the largest bucket size you can afford with your system before choking.

(To anyone who isn't aware, the bucket size goes on a 1:1 ratio with MB of RAM. I have found best results staying on the same scale with bucket size/RAM as you would find it to install in your machine [32, 64, 128, 256, 512.]) I have yet to try above 256 though.

In the attached file, it shows the output of three renders of the same image using my Render Buddy script. (I cut out the scene's actor info, since it doesn't really matter to the study. Suffice to say, it was exactly the same image.) In an effort to make sure that the results weren't clouded on the higher bucket sizes by Poser possibly saving some of the previous render info in RAM, I did the higher size first. There are results for 256, 128, and 64.

In each case, once the bucket size was decreased, the total time to render increased. The reason for this being, if you increase the bucket size, it allows Poser to do more work for each pass, for lack of a better word. (There may be a better word for this, but I don't know what it is ;-) In other words, you allow less total calculations to be made during the full render, as opposed to each calculation taking less time.

The argument against a larger bucket size is that you lose responsiveness from Poser. The larger your bucket size, the longer it will take to answer to a Cancel button click. The best way "around" this is to use the Area Render tool. Make sure each piece of your image is the way you want it before you go for your final render. Also, render the image low before you go for the final. Then you don't have to worry about the long wait Poser will take.

I may do another test with my script, to see if the effect of splitting the image into just shadows, and just color, combined with the bucket size makes a significant difference as well. (The script actually allows you to do a shadow only pass, a color only pass, and/or a normal pass with both. You can then composite the images in an image editor, which actually gives you better control over the shadow output on the scene than you get in Poser.) If I have time for it, I will post those results too.

Obviously, if the memory issues are ever solved by EF, that will be the best case scenario. However, for the time being, we have to work with what we have. I am debating a script attempt to control memory use in the renderer, but I am not sure how well it work, or how long it will take me.

Hope this helps!


  msg24_7    ( ) ( posted at 9:35AM Sun, 24 July 2005 · edited on 9:38AM Sun, 24 July 2005 · @2350677

"In an effort to make sure that the results weren't clouded on the higher bucket sizes by Poser possibly saving some of the previous render info in RAM, I did the higher size first."

Wouldn't the same logic apply, when rendering higher bucket sizes first?

Message edited on: 07/24/2005 09:38

Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.

 

AS3Design - find us on  Facebook

  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 9:39AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350679

I'm a bit confused about a couple of things...

Quote - (To anyone who isn't aware, the bucket size goes on a 1:1 ratio with MB of RAM. I have found best results staying on the same scale with bucket size/RAM as you would find it to install in your machine [32, 64, 128, 256, 512.]) I have yet to try above 256 though.

I have 512 mb DDR ram, are you saying that my bucket size should be set at 512?! > Quote - The argument against a larger bucket size is that you lose responsiveness from Poser. The larger your bucket size, the longer it will take to answer to a Cancel button click. The best way "around" this is to use the Area Render tool. Make sure each piece of your image is the way you want it before you go for your final render. Also, render the image low before you go for the final. Then you don't have to worry about the long wait Poser will take.

I don't understand that at all. What's an "Area Render Tool"? What is rendering "the image low"? How do you do that? And how does it take away the long wait in cancelling a render in Poser? The way I cancel an image in Poser currently is to make sure I save the scene BEFORE I start to render. Then if I need to cancel, I just hit "CTRL ALT DEL" and end Poser. Nothing is lost. I just reopen Poser and open my .pz3 scene again.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  Gareee    ( ) ( posted at 10:05AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350692

Acadia, the area render tool is a P6 thing.. it's the middle icon with what looks like a box on the P6 preview pane top. You select it, and drag a square over a portion of your preview pane, it poser 6 automatically renders that selected area, instead of the whoel image. I love it! Render "low" would be with the lower settings options P6 has.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

  sekhet    ( ) ( posted at 10:17AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350702

Acadia Geezzz you actually CTRL+ALT+DEL Poser. But anyway if you have P6 it has an area render button at the top of the main window, and rengering low is going and changeing you render settings in P5 there is a box to check I think is says preview on one and final on the other, in P6 there is a slider.


  blonderella    ( ) ( posted at 10:35AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350715

sekhet...I have to CTRL+ALT+DEL Poser too...the frelling CANCEL button doesn't do jack, especially if I have a complex scene with many obj's...so, there's nothing else I know to do, other than let CANCEL run on and on and on for hours, and then still not even have my render cancelled! ;/ do you know of some other way to cancel that will actually work??

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

  jade_nyc    ( ) ( posted at 10:48AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350723

I have to CTRL-ALT-DEL with Poser 4 but I haven't had any problems cancelling a render with Poser 5 or Poser 6. Okay so basically you're better off with a bigger bucket size and increasing the bucket size doesn't decrease the quality of the render right?


  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 11:37AM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350763

Okay, to clarify... If you have 512MB of RAM, you should not use 512 for your bucket. I can almost garuntee it will choke Poser. What I am saying is that you want to use the largest bucket size Poser will allow while not choking. I have 1GB RAM, and I get good results using 256 as my bucket size. (I am nervous to try 512, though the worst that can happen is I resort to using Ctrl+Alt+Del.) On the logic of using the same memory storage, starting at the higher end, and going lower. Perhaps this would happen, but this would only further support my argument, since it still took longer to render with a smaller bucket size, even if it kept some of that info stored for later use. Rendering the image on the low end, and the Area Render tool have been explained already. If you are unfamiliar with these things, I would really suggest getting acquainted with them, since they make a world of difference in the workflow! Gareee, I totally agree on the Area Render tool. It has become my best friend, and top new feature of P6 to me! I don't suggest using Ctrl+Alt+Del for anything in Windows. If it can be avoided, you are best off not using it. It can lead to data corruption, and if you have not set your swap file to a static number, it will surely create a mess for your file system. Blonderella, what you are saying is part of this whole issue. By decreasing the bucket size, you have more responsiveness from the Cancel button. The downside is that the render takes much longer the smaller the bucket. Drop the bucket size to like 16, and you will get your image cancelled much faster, but you will also wait for a final render to complete in like 3 days! (Just exaggerating, but you get the point.) To explain the bucket a bit more, since maybe that is where people are having an issue, it is an area of memory Poser sets aside when rendering to do its work. (Keep in mind, this is not a technical explanation, and may not be perfectly accurate, but I want to try to make it clear for everyone where this whole thing is going.) Once that memory is set aside, poser uses this section to write back and forth while creating your render. This is where calculations for things such as raytraced shadows, and geometry are held while poser is processing. By allowing a larger memory space to be used by poser, you allow poser to make more calcualtions at the same time, and in the case where a large part of that "box" being rendered has the same calcualtions, poser doesn't need to calculate the same number twice. (Ever notice that when one of those "boxes" is all black, it renders quite quickly? Less calculations!) Jade NYC, increasing the bucket size in no way affects the actual image that is output by Poser. All it does is control the amount of information processed by each "box." So increasing it, again, does not affect the quality, rather, the time you wait for it to finish. I hope all of this is clear. If it isn't please feel free to ask more questions. I need to go out for a while now, but when I get back, I will check and see if there is anything I can further clarify. Hope this helps!


  blonderella    ( ) ( posted at 11:54AM Sun, 24 July 2005 · edited on 11:59AM Sun, 24 July 2005 · @2350782

"but you will also wait for a final render to complete in like 3 days! (Just exaggerating, but you get the point.)"

unfortunately, you think you're exaggerating, but you're not really, in some instances...I have a scene I have tried like 6 times to render now...first, I am trying to render it at like 2500x2000 or 3000x2500 pixels, so I know it's large...and yes, I need it this large because I will be printing it, we have a large format printer...the scene itself has 3 lights, and lots of objects...3 tiny faeries, a Unicorn, a cyclorama, a pond WITH a reflective surface (reflecting part of the unicorn and many of the pond plants) and lots and lots of plants, both pond and land...I have had to cancel it each time, because it just sits there "adding objects" and doesn't go beyond that...the longest I let it go before I cancelled the render was like 58 hours, and STILL it was adding objects... ==:0 I will try using a larger bucket size (tonight, overnight) and see if it makes any difference in this render, since I've been using a max bucket size of around 32 til now...I had NO idea going way larger was an option...and yes, I have a high end pc...

when I use CTRL+ALT+DEL, I then "end task" Poser, and on occasion I even have to "end process", which I dont like doing...I dont know why exactly, but I know it cant be good ;P

thanks for this post and the info...I truly appreciate your time and effort in collecting the info and posting it here for us...Karen

Message edited on: 07/24/2005 11:58

Message edited on: 07/24/2005 11:59

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

  stewer    ( ) ( posted at 12:29PM Sun, 24 July 2005 · edited on 7:39AM Sat, 28 October 2006 · @2350821

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2228908

The bucket size does not affect anything that happens during the "adding objects" stage. If you have renders that hang during that stage, have a look at your geometry files, if they have scattered material groups:


  jade_nyc    ( ) ( posted at 12:50PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350840

"Jade NYC, increasing the bucket size in no way affects the actual image that is output by Poser. All it does is control the amount of information processed by each "box." So increasing it, again, does not affect the quality, rather, the time you wait for it to finish." Ok thanks for clarifying that but I still don't really understand! lol I would think that by having a smaller area to process the quality would be better but now that I know that's not so I'm going to see how high I can up the bucket size without choking my computer. I've been using 32. Everything takes me so long I feel like I'm back on Poser 4 with my old 400mhz! lol I've been slowly 'STOMPing' my geometry as per stewer's post above. It has helped me to render scenes which were hanging during the 'Add Objects' stage. Great utility - many thanks to Spanki and all you other poser techs who just love poking around in stuff ;)


  dona_ferentes    ( ) ( posted at 2:24PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350917

Thanks for this post. I've been misunderstanding this whole bucket thing, and had mine down to 64. I've just upped it to 512, and am getting great results - mind you, that's with just one figure, hair, and a few props. I suppose that when I load up more complex scenes I'll end up shrinking it down a bit again - but probably not as far as 64!! Oh and FWIW, even with the bucket size of 64, I was still getting practically zero response from the cancel button. The slowness of that button is one of my peeves with Poser.


  LostinSpaceman    ( ) ( posted at 3:32PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2350983

So what you're saying is everyone who's been telling us to lower the bucket size has been wrong? We should be upping the bucket size?


  richardson    ( ) ( posted at 4:13PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351013

Maybe an easier way to look at it is, the heavier the scene..the smaller the bucket. P6 should auto/scale its bucket size if enabled. Mine is constantly halving my presets. This due to how close the cam is...P5 is not that clever and (if lucky) will just finish half way. This is with Firefly only (with mine). Using the P4 renderer just freezes and requires the dreaded Ctrl/alt/del. Nice renders, though. Thanks destro. Like seeing threads like this.


  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 5:05PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351055

To go on record... I have Poser 5

Quote - What I am saying is that you want to use the largest bucket size Poser will allow while not choking.

And how do I know what that is? I've had trouble rendering an imported background and 3 figures, and had to resort to rendering each figure by itself and assesmbling it in PSP. I've also had trouble rendering a simple image consisting of a single figure, a bra, panties, a pair of shoes and hair... far less content in the pose window, but took 3 hours to render. Compare that with another figure dressed similarly that takes 10 minutes to render. Anton helped me reduce that 3 hour render time to about 1 hour by having me edit the .obj files to include a hard carriage return at the end of the coding, but the render time was still almost 6 times longer than most other renders of similar content that I have done. How do I know what bucket size is appropriate for me when the render times for similar figures/clothing, are so grossly different.... 3 hours (reducted to 1 hour with file editing) vs 10 minutes?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 5:07PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351057

Quote - You select it, and drag a square over a portion of your preview pane, it poser 6 automatically renders that selected area, instead of the whoel image. I love it!

Poser 6 is starting to look appealing, LOL

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 5:17PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351063

Quote - I've been slowly 'STOMPing' my geometry as per stewer's post above. It has helped me to render scenes which were hanging during the 'Add Objects' stage. Great utility - many thanks to Spanki and all you other poser techs who just love poking around in stuff ;)

That STOMP utility didn't work for me. All it did was make my clothing items invisible inside Poser. Poser told me that the clothing was on the figure. It was listed in the drop down menu. I could even conform and delete it. However, it was invisible to the eye both in Poser and after rendering. I checked the dial parameter areas, and the clothing was "visible" there, as well as in the hierarchy too.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 5:18PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351066

Quote - had mine down to 64. I've just upped it to 512, and am getting great results

Geez! How much memory do you have?!!

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  duanemoody    ( ) ( posted at 5:24PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351067

FWIW, I have 1.5Gb RAM, Poser 6 and the latest version of OS X Tiger. 512 is perfectly fine and renders much faster (albeit it's a naked V with dynamic hair, no complex shaders).


  dona_ferentes    ( ) ( posted at 5:30PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351074

"Geez! How much memory do you have?!!" 2 Gig. I'm also finding (at least with this very basic test setup) that the cancel button doesn't seem significantly slower than when the bucket was at 64


  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 7:52PM Sun, 24 July 2005 · edited on 8:01PM Sun, 24 July 2005 · @2351163

Okay, wow! I wasn't prepared to come back to this =P

It's great to see this much conversation going on considering the way posts have been going very OT lately. I'm really glad so many are finding it useful.

So to start trying to answer some questions...

Blonderella, have you tried increasing the dpi, as opposed to just the output resolution? I don't recall what Poser's default value is, but I know I have mine set to 72dpi. since I am only rendering for the web. I don't recall all the specific settings, but I think at least 300dpi is the minimum accepted value for anything print. You may want to look into that, and I don't think the hit on the render will be as significant. The thing to keep in mind is that Poser will use up to your total output resolution from texture maps. So if you are using a map with a resolution of say, 6,000 by 6,000, and you render to 3,000 by 2,500, guess what? All your maps that have a resolution of 3k by 2.5k use that resolution. Think about the total number of maps, and the resolution they are all at. My testing has been on one figure, with clothing and hair, and it has 32 maps associated with the scene! Think about how many maps your scene must have. That may be why your scene is still adding objects. Try lowering your max texture size in the advanced section of the Firefly settings screen.

Ed. Oops, I should have said that it will increase the resolution of the texture used up to the maximum texture size you allow in the Max Texture Size setting!

I did try to explain why Ctrl+Alt+Del is a bad idea in my previous post ;-)

Stewer, thanks for that post!

Jade_NYC, the size of the bucket has no effect on the output quality, but it seems you understand that now!

Morphy, glad to see you are getting better results. Yes, I know the button is still slow. The reason being, once Poser begins that "pass" it doesn't break out with the cancel until that "pass" is complete. The reason the smaller bucket size helps with responsiveness is because there is less area to calculate, so less time to wait. Again, I am thinking about a Python script which would contain the render to its own thread, and therefore, killable externally. This may take some time though, and EF may come out with a solution first.

Mizreal, no, I am saying you may want to think about upping the bucket size. Those who have suggested lowering it did so because again, it helps with responsiveness. The downside is a longer time to render though. What you want to do is to up it to the max your system can handle for final renders. It seems many people are unaware of the Area Render tool, new in P6, and therefore are more apt to need to cancel a long running render. The area Render tool is fantastic for making sure each piece of a total render is just right, before starting your final render and heading to bed!

Richardson, I am not sure that the number of objects in a scene matters in relation to the bucket size. Again, the bucket is the area of memory where Poser does its calculations. The larger the bucket, the more calculations that don't have to be repeated. I think the bucket is flushed after each "pass," so the less times you have to repeat the same raytrace calc, the better for your total time to render. Now bear in mind, the flushing bucket is just theory, but I am fairly sure I am not far off base with it. And you are very welcome. I am glad it is helping people!

Acadia, my answer to "how do I know what the best size is for me?" would be, Trial and Error! I honestly don't know what the best size is for an individual setup. I have 1GB of RAM, and the highest I have set my bucket so far is 256. That translated into an 8% better total time. I am going to try 512, and see if I can handle that. Here is the thing with this. You want to make the bucket as big as possible, without pushing the render into your swap file. The more that is done in RAM, the better. So in reality, there probably isn't one true answer applicable to everyone. I, for one, have almost nothing running in my system tray (anti-virus, spybot, and nVidia settings.) I also only run my browser when using Poser, so I don't have a lot of apps running to take up memory. If you are running Photoshop, watching the latest Kelly Clarkson video, chatting in MSN and Yahoo, all while rendering an 8 object Poser scene, you can bet your bucket should be low!

And yes, the Area Render does make P6 more appealing! Can't help you with the STOMP util though. I just DL'd it, so I haven't played with it yet.

Erm, wow, my fingers hurt.

As an update, I rendered the image with a 256 bucket, and split the render into a shadow only image, then a color only image. It actually took almost an extra 4 hours to complete the total 2 renders. So that doesn't help. Ah well. However, the color only pass took only about 4 hours, and I guess since I have AO on parts of the figure, that caused that. (There are still shadows on the face...) In the end, Raytracing is a killer. It is so nice to use, but so painfully slow...

I hope this helps!

Message edited on: 07/24/2005 20:01


  Acadia    ( ) ( posted at 8:33PM Sun, 24 July 2005  · @2351198

For the last few days I have been using a bucket size of 64 (up from 32 or 16). So long as I turn off my firewall, antivirus (I'm behind a router) and don't run my browser, my computer has been able to manage 64 easily enough. I only do single, backgroundless images most of the time, and most don't take more than 30 or 40 minutes at the most, but if I can shorten that, I'm all for it.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



  AntoniaTiger    ( ) ( posted at 2:08AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351421

Just an observation: I have had image artefacts which seem to be associated with the bucket size and other factors. Not directly linked to bucket size, but the bucket boundaries show up. Be careful with the anti-aliasing settings in Firefly -- high values seem to be the cause. My experience in P5 is that the repeated use of the Adding Objects stage for shadowmaps takes a lot of time, even when the actual render is fast. Raytracing can pay off in total time. But P5 raytracing gives hard-edged shadows -- do the extra options in P6 slow down raytracing a lot?


  tastiger    ( ) ( posted at 2:32AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351447

I jumped in this arvo and bumped my bucket up to 256 - what a difference in render time! I have 2 gig of ram so I may just try 512 next run and see how it goes.

The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive.
Robert A. Heinlein


  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 4:58AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351509

AntoniaTiger, I think everything in P6 takes longer. There are so many things that cause more math calcs now that it really does makes sense why. I have also noticed that once you add more than a small number of nodes in the Mat room, P6 begins to slow down quite a bit. Strange on your other issue though. I haven't seen that problem creep up from bucket size. Tastiger, glad this helped you out! Let us know how 512 goes for you. And since you have 2gig, if you feel bold, see if you can push it to 768. A full gig may be pushing it though, lol.


  duanemoody    ( ) ( posted at 9:53AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351689

AntoniaT: I had the bucket edge problem in P5 and as a random, wild guess I picked odd and prime numbers for bucket sizes. I don't know why but it seems to have fixed it.


  blonderella    ( ) ( posted at 9:59AM Mon, 25 July 2005 · edited on 10:02AM Mon, 25 July 2005 · @2351697

stewer, destro...I looked over the objects in my picture and had a feeling that Firefly Scatters might be the problem with the hang during Adding Objects phase...there are so many of the little buggers in the scatter and maybe that's why it takes so long to add the objects....so, I ran that obj through STOMP and put the image to render last night...I also bumped my bucket size up to 256 from 64, and this morning it doesn't look like it's hanging on the Adding Objects...it is, however, still Rendering Shadow Map this morning, 10 hrs later...but no doubt that will take a long time as I have a busy scene...that's not highly unusual, is it?? anybody, anybody, Buehler? anyway, let's see where it goes from here...I'll report back...THANKYOU all for the invaluable info in this post! :D Karen

Message edited on: 07/25/2005 10:02

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 11:03AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351737

Well, on my test subject scene, I had one figure, with transmapped hair, and a simple robe. It was a closeup on the face to top it all off. You would think this would be fairly fast, even with raytracing, but nope. The least amount of time I had was 6 hours. So assuming you have anything in your scene more than that, I would say 10 hours isn't too bad. Maybe more. The Shadows are a killer, though I tried an experiment this morning. I disabled my scene AO. I also changed over from Raytraced Shadows to Depth Mapped. I have AO on the face, through the Mat Room. This actually gave me a better render, plus, on the same image as I have been testing, a total time to render of 32 minutes! I credit a lot of this to the tip from face_off to not use AO or Visible in Raytracing on hair and clothing. These two options were the only ones I changed, so I have to believe this makes a world of difference. If you want to check out the tutorial where I gathered this information, here it is: Ambient Occlusion Node Tutorial. It's definitely worth a read. Hope this helps!


  AntoniaTiger    ( ) ( posted at 11:34AM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351786

Unless you're talking about an insanely slow computer for running Poser, 6 or 10 hours for a single image seems crazy to me. I find myself wondering if the P6 options are worth it.


  destro75    ( ) ( posted at 12:07PM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351817

I guess it's a matter of personal preference. I am willing to wait out a good render with P6. The options are worth it to me. I figure P6 has its share of issues, as evidence from this thread alone. However, I am pretty sure there will be fixes in the future. It is an ambitious product, and is changing the way we use Poser. Keep in mind, quite a few of the P6 features are only otherwise available in packages that are much more expensive. I would say have some patience, and if the features bother you that much, just don't use them until the fix is there. Judging from the info we have been putting together here these past couple of days, there are workarounds for the issues we are facing. So, that means there must be fixes possible. It would have been really nice to have an EF person chime in on this thread, just so we know these issues will make their way back to the powers that be. If anyone has any contacts over there, maybe pointing them this way would be a good service to our fellow poserites!


  blonderella    ( ) ( posted at 12:43PM Mon, 25 July 2005  · @2351860

Antonia Tiger...I have P5 and a fairly high end computer...AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.17 GHz, 1.00 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700LE, Windows XP SP2...I dont know if it matters because I'm not extremely familiar with P5 and how it works or should work, but the image I'm rendering is like 3000x2500 and I'm using the Firefly renderer...for more info on my scene, see my previous post...it is pretty busy however, lots of objects and even a pond with reflections, and I think 3 lights...

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 To create a post you must first sign in or register an account.