Hi I am just curious as to why poser doesn't seem able to utilize more than about 1.6 gig when rendering.

I have 4 gig yet around the point specified above it says out of memory.

What is the limiting factor?

The limiting factor is that poser 4 was written to use 2 gigs of ram and poser 6 is poser 4 and 5 with some code added in.

They should seriously think about fixing it for poser 7.

Ah, I see, so Poser 6 wasn't a new build.

The thing that I don't understand is, why?

What made them decide on a 2 Gig limit in the first place.

Why limit it to 2 Gig when it is obviously a RAM heavy application?

These people are not idiots, there must have been a hardware or software issue, if so, I would be interested to know what it was.

In both cases I would have thought advances in hardware (eg 64 bit) and software would lend itself to giving us a bit more RAM to play with.

Why not make a patch that just alters the settings or the rendering part of the application to utlilize all available RAM.

1.5 GB limit AFAIK.

Yeh, seems to be in my experience.

I think I may contact the software developers and ask them why, becuase I can't think of any reason why this can't be changed.

I am not a software developer, but I imagine the application itself will run independantly of the RAM, in that it will go about it's business, using up RAM untill there is none left.

I do not see why if there is RAM available it suddenly can't use it.

There is a two gigabyte limit because it used to be that PCs couldn`t access more than two gigabytes of ram at one time.

LOL, I guessed that, but what is stopping them simply creating a patch that allows Poser to use more RAM?

After all RAM is just a resource, I can't imagine it is actuall a part of the program.

It is just the means that the program uses to get to an end.

So, what is stopping them raising the limit?  :o)

They could make a new poser 6 service release with the memory limit fixed.

The issue isn't something with poser, its something with the operating system.

Windows XP/2000, which are the req for the current version of poser (PC) limit a program by default to 2 gigs of ram at maximum. Poser itself uses roughly 400 to 600 depending on other variables.

Poser could be written to use greater ram, but would still be limited to that limitation as a whole.

They could, of course, create a 64 bit version, which would be useless for the greater number of their users.  Or, they could wait and see what sort of restrictions come with Vista when it ships.

In the interim, note that poser is not a patient beast, and will not wait for windows to handle VM on its own -- it needs the space readily availbe, so be sure your swap file is of reasonable size.

I thought that you could use more than 2 gigs ram with windows xp?

You can -- but no program within xp can access more than 2 gb of ram space.

XP will not release more than 2gb of ram to any program, more specifically, and, even more, lol, it can allow up to 3GB if the program is capable of using a specific switch and that switch is manually set up within windows.

You can use more than 2 Gb but any one program can use only 2 Gb maximum. With XP you run Poser, the OS and all kinds of drivers at the same time so you might get a bit of performance gain by having some extra RAM.

In reality 2 to 3 Gb is sufficient at this moment for using Poser on XP. With a dual core processor and some other programs (Carrara) you may get proper use out of additional memory.

The best machine today for Poser would be dual core processor with 2 to 3 Gb, for programs using the additional core it would be dual core processor with 4 Gb (which about the maximum current motherboards can handle).

All this changes when a true 64 bit OS and applications appear.

I am running a 64 bit motherboard with 4x 1 gig sticks of DDR RAM.

My operating system is XP Proffessional 64 bit.

This is why I was asking the question. It occurred to me that if the limitation was purely down to the original hardware being 32 bit, then surely Curious Labs should be able to offer a patch to alter the way that Poser accesses RAM to enable the extra resources.

TBH, I would be prepared to pay a small sum of money for the above, so I can cut down on the amount of layering I have to do on heavily populated images.

Attached Link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/memory/base/memory_limits_for_windows_releases.asp

So couldn't creative labs create a patch that makes poser flick the switch in windows to enable that other 1 gig of RAM as mentioned earlier in the thread?

That would be nice indeed. I am curious, what exactly are you rendering that needs so much memory? Couldn't you just render in layers as a workaround until we have a 64bit version of Poser? It could happen, e-frontier made a 64bit version of Shade. But that is just guessing...

It's not just flicking a switch. While setting the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag when linking Poser would make Windows assign more memory to Poser, that doesn't guarantee a fully working program. Every part of the application would need to be prepared to deal with the higher address allocations, including the parts that are out of e frontier's control (for example, Apple's Quicktime SDK or the Size8 cloth simulation). Here's a series of blog entries on MSDN that hopefully explain a few of the issues involved: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/06/209840.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/12/213468.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/16/215089.aspx However, if you are brave and daring, feel free to use Microsoft's editbin.exe and set the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag for a copy of your Poser.exe. (Don't forget to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini as well). That will have the same effect as if e frontier had set the flag at linker time. If you're lucky, everything may run just fine and use more memory. However, it may just as well crash and burn.

I make and sell erotic action stories. I try to make my images as realsitic as possible, where all the characters are normal looking people not porn queens etc.

I also put great effort into the enviroments my stories take place in. Using the most realsitic textures I can etc.

I have and do regularly build my images up in layers and have no problem in doing so, but it would be far simpler and allow me to more heavily populate my scenes for the same amount of time if I could have more figures per render.

Just for the record, I don't mind waiting and I am more than happy with poser6 as is. However I was just curious as to why we had this limit and wondered whether anyone had approached curious labs to suggest this modification to what, I imagine is a small part of the program, whether in poser or windows.

If we're all honest and had to vote on it, I think most of us would be chuffed to bits if the patch was made. If nothing else it would increase productivity and for those of us that do this proffesionally, time is money :oD

Sorry stewer you posted whilst I was typing :op

Bear in mind I hadn't seen your post when I posted mine :o)

Having read your post, it would seem it is not that simple for a lamen like myself, but surely for a proffessional software programmer it wouldn't be that difficult and if they charged a small fee then I am sure the time spent would be easily re-couped.

Indeed I would argue that the software would become more attractive to potential customers.

I second that. And making Poser multithreaded while they are at it would be just awesome. Those two things can potentially, IMO, make Poser more attractive to mid and high-end users. As it is, it works great, but there is always room for improvement.

This are the features that maybe average users would not immediately appreciate, but which can make or break your day in professional work. And anyway, 64bit and multi-head processors are the way of the future, so the earlier they embrace them, the better.

Just imagine a multithreaded-64bit Poser7 on one of those boxx apex8 dream machines... sigh...

Poser 7? Hell I haven't even begun to understand 6 fully and already the cries are out for 7. What's the use of purchasing more memory and stuffing it in your machine if poser is only using a wee amount of it? I didn't buy P5 because of all the crap and now it seems that 6 has crap too. Is there any version of poser people will be happy with? Damn all I want to do is set up scenes and render it's that simple. So why can't they create a version of poser that is simple to use and easy on the resources instead of packing the program full of shite? What e-frontiers is now microsoft?

Hehehe....rant over

Micheál

Having more memory in your operating system than what a specific program can use is still very useful. The operating system itself needs lots of memory for doing it's internal things. And you can always browse the internet while that slooooooow render is at work. It makes you more productive on the whole. I know I do, I usually have Gimp, Poser, Firefox, and sometimes even Shade and progecad (autocad clone) open at the same time, switching from one to another. On a multi-monitor setup.

This would be bad for your health to try if you had, say, 256mb of ram.

I never owned P5, but I do own P6, and I have never regretted my decision. If your renders are not that complicated, you could try and switch from firefly to poser4 render engine, it works much faster.

BTW, I think I will never stop learning Poser. Each time I think I have finally got the grip of things, somebody posts a new way of doing things that returns me to the learning phase!

Quote - Just imagine a multithreaded-64bit Poser7 on one of those boxx apex8 dream machines... sigh...

Yup, sounds almost as expensive as my 1695 Austrian Olmutz Thaler (coin). A wee bit too much for a machine to run poser on

Oh no I never stop learning about poser. Just wish it was just more somple sometimes.

Micheál

Quote -

Yup, sounds almost as expensive as my 1695 Austrian Olmutz Thaler (coin). A wee bit too much for a machine to run poser on

Micheál

Last time I checked on their website, US$25000 to US$50000. That is more than what my car is worth!

Ah, but I can dream...

Quote - > Quote -

Yup, sounds almost as expensive as my 1695 Austrian Olmutz Thaler (coin). A wee bit too much for a machine to run poser on

Micheál

Last time I checked on their website, US$25000 to US$50000. That is more than what my car is worth!

Ah, but I can dream...

Dreaming is what gives us hope and we hope one day our dreams will come true. It seems that technology is expensive when it's first released but beomes affordable very quickly. I mean who would have dreamed they would have a PC in their home not too long ago. Now it's as common as owning a TV. In time maybe this system will not be so costly.
Only thing is that the rate technology moves something new will come out and we are back not being able to afford that.....just can't seem to get a break...LOL!!!

Micheál

btw, how expensive can a coin be? I am pretty sure they can be quite expensive, but just how much? So I know if I buy a new car, a new computer or a coin :lol:

What? Am I the first one to every try this out? Proving my own prediction wrong, this hack freaking works! Poser 6 is using 2.7GB of memory on my computer right now.

Quote - btw, how expensive can a coin be? I am pretty sure they can be quite expensive, but just how much? So I know if I buy a new car, a new computer or a coin :lol:

It really depends on the coins rarity. Take for example the Eliasberg  (Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. the only one to own a complete collection of U.S coins) 1913 Liberty Nickel with a grade of Proof 66, which is one of the finest known of only five ever produced and four of these are accounted for, sold for $4.15 million dollars.

U.S. coins at the moment seem to carry the higher values. However, world and ancient coins are making a climb as well. That is because for so long world and ancient coin collecting, here in the states, was not popular. I like world and ancient coins over U.S. because of they carry far more history and tend to be more artistic in design. It’s really cool to hold an early Roman coin for if it could speak think of the tales it could tell.

Micheál

Quote - > Quote - However, if you are brave and daring, feel free to use Microsoft's editbin.exe and set the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag for a copy of your Poser.exe. (Don't forget to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini as well). That will have the same effect as if e frontier had set the flag at linker time. If you're lucky, everything may run just fine and use more memory. However, it may just as well crash and burn.

What? Am I the first one to every try this out? Proving my own prediction wrong, this hack freaking works! Poser 6 is using 2.7GB of memory on my computer right now.

Coool, are you running 64 bit or 32

What I really want to know is, will it work on 64 bit as the relevant data shown on the link only seems to refer to 32

I can't tell if it works on 64bit Windows, as I don't own a 64bit computer (yet). Feel free to try it out, from what I gather, it should be even safer and easier to try, as you would then only have to change the flag in the Poser executable and notthing in XP's boot flags. In fact, you wouldn't even need to reboot, you would just need to call editbin /LARGEADDRESSAWARE C:pathtoposerPoser.exe (AFTER you made a backup copy of Poser.exe). editbin.exe comes with Visual Studio, if you don't own it, Visual C++ Express Edition is a free download from Microsoft.

bookmarking!
Stewer, can you throw everything you can at poser and see what happens?

this could be wonderful....

This is the one you want to bookmark: http://www.stewreo.de/poser/3gb.html I put it on my web site so it won't get lost when the thread gets old. So far, my tests showed that this version now does indeed handle bigger scenes - the screenshot I posted showing it using 2.7GB RAM were taken during rendering a scene that the unpatched version didn't handle. But I'm not running it long enough yet to say anything valid about stability/reliability of that hack.

Well.....I've had a look at what I think is supposed to be the explanation onhow to do this and well....

It doesn't make any sense LOL.

I have never done any work in Visual C++ I imagine if i had I would find it simple but I haven't :o)

So unless someone can make a step by step tutorial on how to do this, I don't think it is going to happen.

Of course, whoever did make the tutorial would I imagine be very popular and be fighting of girls with a dirty stick :op

Oh, you posted whilst I was typing. That tutorial on your site is just the job, thank mate you da man :o)

I'll do it on my machine and see how it works on 64 bit.

Let us know if this works for you! If you're running 64bit Windows, all you should need to do is running the editbin commmand, the modification to boot.ini is not necessary then - so you're not risking your system stability. If it does work, fork over the cash, I have it black on white:

Quote - TBH, I would be prepared to pay a small sum of money for the above, so I can cut down on the amount of layering I have to do on heavily populated images.

:woot:

I put an update on the web site with what I think should be the instructions for XP 64bit. I can't test them myself as I don't have 64bit hardware (donations welcome).

Hi stewer, I just tried your 64 bit tutorial and it came back with an error.

What I did.

Downloaded the visual c++ 2005 express edition

Opened the command prompt

copied and pasted the edit bin text into it

C:Pogram FilesCurious LabsPoser 6Poser.exe (altered the folder because mine doesn't say Efrontier)

I have tried it with "efrontier" also.

However I get this message:

EDITBIN: fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file 'C:program filese frontierposer 6poser.exe

Now my poser is on a slave drive. it is sitting in it's own partition called the c drive.

My Operating system is running on the F drive (don't ask :o/)

Tha actual path to the poser.exe is this:

C:Pogram FilesCurious LabsPoser 6Poser.exe

Any ideas, or have I just confused the hell out of you :op

I would guess that you forgot the quotation marks around the path. The command line needs that to recognize the path as one thing and not a series of separate words. The easiest way is to not type the path but simply drag and drop the Poser.exe file from the Explorer on the command line window.

Yeh, you were right, but now it says "filename, path or syntax error" LOL.

If you have any other suggestions, I am listening but otherwise, us 64 bitters will have to wait I suppose.

I might contact the developers see what they think.

Did you open a Visual Studio 2005 command line? The regular Windows command line doesn't know where to find editbin.exe.

Don't put quotation marks before editbin.

I have just half rendered an image with fifteen fully clothed millenium figures in it and as you can see from the pic enclosed it topped out at 3 gig (actually went up to 3.2 but was too slow with the capture) and continued to render.

I didn't wait for it to finish, but this is going to speed things up for me no end.

You are the man my friend ;o)

Marv

It would appear that in the free version of Visual Studio, Editbin is a crippled, or feature reduced version

Quote - It would appear that in the free version of Visual Studio, Editbin is a crippled, or feature reduced version

Are you getting an error message ?
What do you see if you use :-

editbin /?

LARGEADDRESSAWARE[:NO]

About a third of the listed options have [:NO] after them

Quote - LARGEADDRESSAWARE[:NO]

About a third of the listed options have [:NO] after them

The square brackets are used to indicate an optional part of the argument, in this case it means that adding ":NO" after "/LARGEADDRESSAWARE" will turn the flag off.

Okay I have no idea what I did different this time but it worked

Oh the joys of having a 64 bit OS when all the software & hardware vendors have their heads firmly stuck where the sun shineth not, the 32 bit land of obsolescence

Does the hack affect any other programs in any way (Good or bad) ?

this all sounds amazing, i have an amd dual core processor, any ideas on how that might

affect this hack ?

AFAIK a dual processor has no affect.