Rendering problems

[jeff.95551]

I've got a new computer, completely decked out, updated drivers, etc., and I'm having a really hard time getting the rendering to work! You get things set up, hit render, and it goes through 'preprocessing voxel space,' 'preprocessing screen space,' and then hangs - windows kills revit and you are back to desktop. I can occasionally get a really small image to render, but really small renderings are pretty worthless. It's got a Quadro Fx1500 256mb graphics card, newest drivers, 4 gigs of ram (I've tried it with both the 3g switch and normal windows), lots of drive swap space on Raid 0 cards, and a fast Athlon dual core processor. As for settings, the renderer is set to 'allow only one processor' (neither way works) and the open gl settings are off (again - no combination works). Anybody have similar issues?

Thanks

[luigi]

I need to ask you for the size of the image and then the resolution....

I've got a new computer, completely decked out, updated drivers, etc., and I'm having a really hard time getting the rendering to work! You get things set up, hit render, and it goes through 'preprocessing voxel space,' 'preprocessing screen space,' and then hangs - windows kills revit and you are back to desktop. I can occasionally get a really small image to render, but really small renderings are pretty worthless. It's got a Quadro Fx1500 256mb graphics card, newest drivers, 4 gigs of ram (I've tried it with both the 3g switch and normal windows), lots of drive swap space on Raid 0 cards, and a fast Athlon dual core processor. As for settings, the renderer is set to 'allow only one processor' (neither way works) and the open gl settings are off (again - no combination works). Anybody have similar issues?

Thanks

[truevis]

For testing, I'd try a different project. If that works, there may be tricks you can try on your current project.

There have been treads on this problem before.

It would be a shame if you can't get it to work. Sounds like a nice 'puter you've got there.

[jeff.95551]

Thanks for the replies - I've tried this on a couple of files - the one that matters is a large project (100+ megs) and the renderings are intense - I planned to let them run overnight. The size that works was about 800x600 - at 72dpi. That one only took about 4 minutes. I'd like to do the same image at 400-600 dpi. I can do it on my laptop (Dell XPS 2g) and it works fine, just takes about 8 hours of crunching. I'll do a search on this topic as well.

Thanks

[kpaxton]

Jeff,
Bummer of a problem. Hope you can figure this one out, unfortunately there's alot of different variables that can be involved in hunting down a problem like this. I think the suggestions mentioned are all good ones.

I'd like to offer a few tips too - First, unless you're doing a huge poster sized rendering later, you don't need to do 600 dpi. I know this from first-hand experience! I used to do those and found that sure, they look great, even when I zoooooooom into the image. However, I found that with a good 150dpi (or even a 200 dpi -300 max!) image at 11x17 (natural image size) - this will print out at 24"x26" sized and look stunning!

Second, IF you need a slightly higher res than the original, use an image program, such as Photoshop to increase the resolution. Obviously this will only get you so far, but it saves TONS of time.

Third, when rendering to a smaller resolution (say 200 dpi), make sure you're using the "Best" settings, have backfaces culled, etc. This will help maintain the image as crisp as it can be.

Fourth - IF you're using Accurender plants - this will DRAMATICALLY increase your render times. Try to use these only in the foreground, or in special and specific places, while using bitmapped images for the background, etc. You could also use RPC trees to assist in lowering the rendering times.

Fifth - RPC's can cause some problems. Not always, but sometimes... Be wary how many your using and that their pathing is correct. I've known of some issues where this caused errors and crashing right off the bat.

Sixth - The model size is large! If you've got exterraneous data, and you don't need things like the furniture inside, etc. use things like linked models or Worksets to assist in reducing the 'overhead' of your rendering file. (i.e. You really, really, don't have to render the file cabinet in the fifth office on the third floor in the back...)

Good Luck and hope to see the rendering in the gallery on Monday!

Kyle

[luigi]

Hi Jeff, is the 800x600 already in pixels? that means that the size of the rendering in inches is 11.11x8.33 ? If that is the inch size of the rendering, then it should work. Which means there is something funny going on. For a 300 dpi it would make the file 3333x2500, which, although it is not a small rendering, it is still reasonable.

The reason I asked for the size, is that sometimes people (including myself) keep stretching the boundary,and don't realize that the size has become huge (i.e. 60"x40" or something), so a 300 dpi for that size would mean 18,000x12,000 pixel image.....with accurender (and other programs) your computer would just die!

Let us know what you find out.

You can also, export your 3d view to dwg, then import it in a brand new file, recreate the camera and render.....see if that works with the exact render size...

Thanks for the replies - I've tried this on a couple of files - the one that matters is a large project (100+ megs) and the renderings are intense - I planned to let them run overnight. The size that works was about 800x600 - at 72dpi. That one only took about 4 minutes. I'd like to do the same image at 400-600 dpi. I can do it on my laptop (Dell XPS 2g) and it works fine, just takes about 8 hours of crunching. I'll do a search on this topic as well.

Thanks

[luigi]

Oh, on a slightly different note...

a person's eye, honestly recognizes aproximately 100-133 pixels per inch, the eye will automaticall blend pixels together at that size...this number of course varies depending on if the image is of a large object or scene (a whole panorama), or a small intricate one (a blowup of a person's eye) ...but on a 24x36 board, that is viewable from a minimum of 4-5 feet and farther, 100dpi may work, but a 133 would be recommended....remember that although the file is set to 133, the printer will still print it as 300dpi or 600 dpi. The main reason to have a larger dpi is to allow for flexibility in size....so if I am working on a rendering that is 11x17 at 300 dpi, I would be able to blow that size up to at least 24x36, and it would still be an acceptable rendering. But if you know that the image will never be used more than a 11x17, print it to 150 dpi.....it's all relative!

[jeff.95551]

thanks for all the great ideas and responses! I'm not trying to get a super-detailed image, but at the same time, the short side of the building is 225' long x 75' high. An 800x600 pixel image doesn't give much detail at all, and my hope was to use it as a background for a composited marketing video in After Effects or flash. I'll check the RPC objects, since there are a few - I hadn't heard of that and see if I can't reduce the landscaping. I'll be in all weekend, so hopefully I can get something going...

[truevis]

......make sure you're using the "Best" settings, have backfaces culled, etc. This will help maintain the image as crisp as it can be....

I do it differently. I use Draft/Draft quality settings and pump up the resolution to 5000px wide.

For the original problem: make sure the ground plane is off.