I am trying to render a pic. I keep getting "Insufficant disk space to render at resolution" I have 5gig's left on my hd. I am rendering a pic 900x900 300dpi. I'm using a PIII 730 with 512mg of ram. I have had this error before, but rebooting usually cleared it. It didn't work this time. Can someone explain why this is happening?

Maybe it's a combination of the models, figures and texture maps? I've never seen that error before and my machine is much lower powered than yours.

im sure the ratio of dpi to pixels aint right as im doing a 1440,990 at 72 dpi i may be wrong but tey diif dpi setting

When was the last time you defragged your HD? or is the free 5GB virgin? is it on your C: drive? Windows can only use unfragmented contiguous space on C: drive for virtual memory. Sometimes it is not the final render size that eats up the memory and scratch disk, it is the combined uncompressed texture sizes of all the figures in that scene plus shadow maps, trans maps, etc that are compiled during the render process (and then deleted when the final image is copied to the filename you specify. Other than that, if the problem persists, you might have found a bug that should be reported to Curious Labs.

Thanks guys and gals ~s~ Will try a defrag. Admit haven't done that in a while and there has been a lot of stuff passing through my c latey. I did try dropping it down to 200 dpi but it still came up with the error. I prefer the higher dpi for printing and size adjustment etc later. Thanks for the help.

If you are rendering a 900x900 pixel image then the DPI is irrelevant to your computer. DPI is just a convention for printing to specify how large the printed image should be. 900x900x72dpi has exactly the same number of pixels as 900x900x300dpi.

Check you winswap file in startsettingscontrol panelsystemperformancevirtual memory. If you have 5 gigs left and the winswap file is set for this amount you will get those type of error's constantly.

What O/S are u using? Win9X, ME, NT or 2K? If win9X or ME, defrag as stated above. Don't take offense, but I will state this very simply as I am not sure or your knowledge level. Right click on "My Computer", select properties, select the performance tab then the "virtual memory" button. If VM is fully automatic, everything will be grayed out. Select 'Let me specifymy own settings'. Assuming that the 5 gigs is on your C: drive, set the minimum to 500 & leave the max where it is. If the 5 gigs is on another drive, u can set it with the pull down menu. Click Yes & Ok, then reboot. NOTE: You will not have access to the 500 megs u allocate. Windows will create a perm. file that size & increase the size if needed. perm swap files fragment much less that fully virtual ones. If NT or Win2K, follow the same process above. The tabs are a little diff, but I am not looking at a "NT/2K" machine at this time. Set the min to 500 & the max to between 1000 & 1300. U can also allocate space on multiple drives. Sorry this is so long. Hope it helps.

After a five hour defrag I came back. ~s~ The defrag didn't fix it, but changing the min to 500 did. Thanks so much and I like simple directions. Not a newbie at computers but sometimes people rattle off things I get lost...not hard of course. I am using 2k pro, which I love (a rarity for me I usually endure Mirosoft.) I'm confused at the 300dpi verses the 72 dpi... How can they be exactly the same? If they are, why is it an option? I would assume that the quaility would be better at 300. Again thanks for the help.

The DPI setting is relevant to print oriented programs, like Quark and Photoshop because they were created for people who expected their final product to be in print. When you print 300 DPI (Dots Per Inch) on a printer the dots are closer together than when you print at 100 DPI, and therefore make the image appear sharper (but it is really just smaller) assuming the same 900x900 pixel image in both cases. In terms of computer displays and video production "Dots Per Inch" doesn't translate, as the dots on CRTs and other video devices are fixed and cannot be squeezed together - most monitors have fixed resolutions that are somewhere between 72 and 96 DPI. When you process an image that is 900x900 pixels there are a total of 81,0000 dots to manipulate (900 times 900) it doesn't matter whether the dots are "close together" or "far apart" there are still only 81,000 of them and that is what determines the maximum "detail" that the image can contain. If you want more detail on a computer, you need to increase the image dimensions from say, 900x900 to 1200x1200. Just changing the DPI setting from 100 to 300 doesn't do a thing to give your computer more detailed data to process. It only affects the size of that image when you send it out to your printer. Its late, and I hope this helps - don't know how I got on this tangent anyway :0 'nite all Ron

Thanks Ron for explaining that. I knew to get a good print out that the dpi had to be high. But I really did think on the computer it helped in some obscure way, perhaps in the save quaility, obviously I was wrong. So from now on I'll work at 72 and boost it up when I print. Glad you went on the tangent.

Glad it helped. Win2K definatly runs Poser better than Win9x. I had to set up a multi boot between the 2 because Poser was freezing trying to render Vicki2 & the Noa tex (hence my other thread). Another thing, are you usung FAT32 or NTFS on your drive? You will see a performance hit on drive access if using NTFS because of all the redundant checkes it makes when accessing & writing data. If it is a home PC, then it's best to use FAT32.

I have two hd's my c is set in NTFS D is fat32. Have been thinking of deleting everything off my d which is a 6gig and leaving it purely for poser and all the goodies. I had a dual boot system years ago, can't remember betweeen what os, but hated it. Also hate reformatting c drives... so I doubt I will be changing from NTFS ~G~ I am lazy I admit it.

If you redo your d: drive, then I suggest re-installing Poser on that drive if not already. That way you would get the performance increase. no matter how slight, every bit helps. :-)