I have been having problems with Poser 7 ever since I started rendering with IBL/occlusion. Since then if I rendered something bigger than 800x1000 the program would lock up. I knew that my computer had enough power and it shouldn't do that (especially since it rendered everything else all along fine). Anyway, long story short I was talking to someone at Smith Micro yesterday about Poser 8, wanting to find out before I got a new version how I could fix this. I happened to get (or they were talking to not sure which) the head graphic guy there and was told that the whole series of 8000s of geforce (I have the EVGA GeForce 8800 GT Superclocked 512MB) was bad with Poser and caused a lot of problems (which upsets me to begin with since this was never mentioned in requirements I went out and bought a new video when I bought Poser 7 before so it would work better because my system was old). Now I never heard any of this before, but whatever, if it fixes my problems...

Anyway, because of this I started searching on the forum people having problems with this series and found some information about adding Poser to the nvidia manager thing. (I also saw they were having similar problems I had had previously with Poser crashing for no reason which I thought before was a bug not the video card).  Anyway, this actually seemedto fix the problem, as I now have rendered at 1600x2400 and picture I never could before and am in the process of  rendering it at 2400x3000.

My question is, is over 3 hours normal for the first size render (not sure how long because I eventually went to bed and left it). The bigger one has been rendering for about I think like 7 hours maybe and it's still not done (though granted it's not locked up either which is a plus) I'm not sure if it should take that long or if it is because of the video card. I had mentioned to Smith Micro getting a geforce 9800 GTX+ and they said that was a recommended one but I'm thinking that changing the video card is not going to make a huge difference timewise and if I have taken care of the lockup problems it might be better to upgrade something else.  Right now I have a core 2 duo and 4 gbs ram and was thinking maybe I should get a better processor, but from reading things it sounds like maybe switching to vista 64bit could make a difference? (I  hope not I hate Vista this pc I'm talking about is XP). I don't have a lot of money right now so I'm probably looking at trying to figure out which one thing to upgrade would give me the most speed benefit. I'm also hoping if I upgrade to Poser 8 that will help with render times...

Any help is appreciated, thanks.

I think rendering is solely processor based - not entirely sure tho. It sounds like your scene may have a lot of effects or transparencies, not sure there either. I have a system with a quad core and 12 gigs of ram and the same video card you have and my renders never take more than a few minutes. I am not sure if our systems are that different or the scenes we are rendering.

I have a desktop with two 8800GTX cards in SLI, and a laptop with two 8700M GT cards in SLI, and I haven't noticed any issues with P7 (or so far with P8).

The IBL and Ambient Occlusion combined with large pixel dimensions will require lots of render time.  You may also be approaching the memory limits, in which case the render will bog down.

P8 is much faster than P7 when doing comparable P7-type renders (non-IDL), but when you engage IDL, it will take a long time to render.  On the other hand, I found that I was able to render a complex scene which had crashed P7, so P8 seems to manage memory better.  Further, the first update for P8 may improve the IDL render speed.

Long term, you are right that 64bit is the way to go with your next computer.  To duck Vista, simply wait until autumn, when Windows 7 will be out.  And you might consider an nVidia Quadro video card instead of the video game cards.  The Quadro is made for CGI work.  They are expensive.  When working on the 64bit machine with a Quadro, I can see how materials will tile in real time in preview, and I can see the scale of procedural materials in preview.

Well, I'm sure the quad core and 12 gigs of ram helps lol. The scene is V4 dressed with hair with a couple weapon props and some tombstone props so it's not huge. But no background or anything I was doing that post. (and no effects, etc.) I could before always render pictures this size (its 8x10 actually) fairly quickly but it was once I started using the occlusion that I guess something isn't handling. I just am trying to figure out which it is that isn't handling it. I sometimes have wondered if my video card has been bad since i bought it (because I think that is why sometimes after my computer has been running for awhile it either shuts down completely all of a sudden or shuts down and keeps trying to restart but won't get past the page asking if you want to use the last stable mode unless I turn the pc off for hours. Unless it's getting too hot that was my other thought I need to clean it/ get a fan. But I wouldn't think the motherboard would effect the speed. You can't add more ram (I mean above 4gbs) though unless you switch to Vista 64 bit am I understanding that correctly? I just for so long have been not using Poser like I would like to simply because each render takes so long and I need to fix that one part at a time since I'm broke lol.

Actually once I get time to work on a new piece (not for a couple days probably) the next thing I was going to be working with was part of [your] potions room thing. I have two models I wanted to import into a scene made with wizard place but I'm thinking though at this point that that will be way too much to render. Maybe I can figure out how to render the shadows separately though to do it in layers, hopefully:) I just saw your name and realized I was just working with the stuff yesterday lol.

Thanks.

Attached Link: Pic1

In the meantime though I don't think I am able to add any more ram without the 64bit. So going on 9 hours for an 8x10 render with occlusion isn't abnormal? (it's still running). I would not use it but after comparing now I think all my old renders look like plastic, probably because I'm not good with lights. Adding the ambient seemed to solve my problems and make it more realistic.

I'll attach one of the old renders so you all can see how much is in the image which isn't much. The last times I rendered it I hid a lot of the stuff in the photo I didn't need (like the unused tombstones)

That doesn't look like a scene that should take too long to render.

We should all do a render test on the same scene using the same settings and see how things differ.

Gotta pick something we all have lol. Well I guess you have the wizard place/store lol duh. Though I want to wait until it's done rendering the big picture though or I would have to start over. I started it around 7-730 eastern this morning, it's still going...I would have waited until tonight if I knew it would take so long...but hey it's actually rendering that is a change for me. Usually it locks up within an hour.

I used Poser 7 and Poser Pro (for a while) with an 8800 GTS and had no problems at all, graphics-wise.
I have a GTX 285 now though and still no problems, although if there's any performance increase it's minuscule, since Poser doesn't come anywhere near to tapping into GPU power for anything.

Did you misunderstand the Smith Micro "head graphic guy" or did he misunderstand you?
Or does he just have no idea what he's talking about?

If he told you there are known issues with the GT 8800, he's lying. The video card model (provided it's a modern one) makes no difference; it's the drivers that make all the difference, and the drivers are constantly updated by Nvidia.
If he told you a better video card would improve your render speed, he needs to find another job that has nothing to do with 3D tech support. Your video card does absolutely nothing in Poser when it comes to rendering.

That technology is coming along, and it will be a good thing when it's more popular and more prevalent, but it's only in a very few high end render engines right now, and GPU rendering will be much more powerful than CPU rendering.

One day maybe even Poser may have it.

Quote -
And you might consider an nVidia Quadro video card instead of the video game cards.  The Quadro is made for CGI work.

A Quadro will not likely perform any better in Poser than a top of the line gaming card, and it will more than likely degrade your performance somewhat in not only Poser, but games too, and maybe even 2D programs such as Photoshop CS4.
Quadros are made for CAD programs, where real time anti-aliasing is a factor, and for more advanced shaders that Poser can't even display.

There are very few programs that benefit from a Quadro, and they're all high end, such as Autocad and 3ds max Design.

No he didn't say the other video card would improve render time, he said that if I was having the lock up problems it was because of the model video card I used and that the 8000 series was known to have problems with Poser (which if this is the case why is it not on their website with their system requirements? as I said to them I went out and purchased this video card to have Poser work better since it fit in with all the requirements?! They said they will add it, I'm not holding my breath) something about they can't tell you specifically which video cards are the best for it, which I don't understand, but he did sound like he knew what he was talking about. I have read that people have had problems with the series but adding Poser to the nvidia settings seems to fix most peoples - if the line of video cards cause problems generally in Poser they should have on their site about it, but I'm getting the feeling they want people to think it works on everything so they can't be blamed.

So I guess I should hold off on the video card. I just don't know if I should go for a processor or vista 64 bit so I can add ram eventually. I could wait for Windows  7 but will it be better then Vista? You always hear you should wait to get a version of windows until it's been out for awhile to hear about all the problems and wait for updates lol. Hoping maybe i can at least afford a quad core I would assume that would make a big difference. Gotta check Tiger Direct:)

Windows 7 is considerably better than Vista, IMO, yes.

I very much doubt there are any known issues with the 8800 GT.
The 8800 series was (is) very popular and a whole lot of people got them. It stands to reason if they got a lot of complaints, alot of those people would be using 8800's. Law of averages and all.

As I already said, sometimes Nvidia drivers aren't that great, and they had a problem with the 8800s for a while, when they were new. Just like they're having issues with the GTX 200.x series now.

You can buy your 8800 GT and rest assured that any problems you may have with it can be ironed out easily enough. I very much doubt Poser can distinguish one model from another. It sees the drivers, not the hardware, and the nvidia 8800 line is rock solid, reliable, and has nothing about it to inherently cause Poser issues.

One thing about tech people... sometimes they just tell you what they think you want to hear. Sometimes it's easier that way.

Quote - ... So going on 9 hours for an 8x10 render with occlusion isn't abnormal? (it's still running).

It's not necessarily abnormal, because mine usually take a good long while (hours), but I usually have more things in the scene that what you describe, as well as reflections, etc.

Laurie

Ok I just checked a few things (trying to find out what processor speed I have but I'm afraid to mess with the computer while it's still rendering) but the video card is an e-GeForce I don't know if that makes a difference (might just be because of the brand I don't know) but at least now I don't have to go buying a new video card.

As for the render, it's going on over 10 hours now and if what is showing on the screen is any indication, it is only part way down her face - so not even 25% done. Though it's still not locked up. That may just be the way it shows though sometimes I know before it would show only part rendered then suddenly finished. But for what is in the scene, this definitely seems to be taking way too long. I was able to find at least the box for my motherboard, it will still work for Vista (I assume that means 64bit as well or does it have to have something special?) and extreme or quad core so at least I can update that without getting a new motherboard as well. I'm just worried with everything going so slow with the render if one of my components isn't working the way it should. Some may still have a warranty. I'm kind of afraid though if I update more drivers again it will stop Poser working but maybe I should check all the drivers. Could that make a difference with speed or just whether or not there are problems?

2400x3000 is pretty big....

How much RAM do you have?
Check in Task Manager to see if your CPU is running at full.

2400x3000 is only 8x10 I always figured people made them that big how else can you print them. I have 4 gbs of ram. Sometimes it says all the cpu is running, but I will check it when I start a new render I'm so scared to do anything until this one is done I don't want to lock it up. It's now going on over 11 hours:( It never used to take that long. Even my laptop will render certain 8x10s with occlusion (my laptop is broken now though but it did) though this file I guess was too much for it, but still when it did work it maybe would take 3 hours or something, not all day...

What other applications do you have running? Like antivirus applications, firewalls, antispyware applications that some people may use? Maybe it doesn't really have anything with poser. You checked that CPU is running at full sometimes, but is it occupied with poser or something else? You can check this at process tab, find poser.exe there and look at CPU part when poser is rendering.

I also have 8800GTS, two computers, one has first revision with 320MB ram, second one has newer revision with 512MB and both work fine. No crashes. Graphics card could cause crash only in preview if OpenGL is enabled. As MikeJ said, it doesn't do anything when poser is rendering, and if that rep suggested that rendering problems are graphics card's fault he should either change the job, or read something about the product he's advising on. Hmm, maybe it was actually the janitor, Scrubs janitor comes to mind :P. Or if you want to be sure try switching it to sree3d before you start render.

Actually now that I think about it my spyware doctor is running which could definitely be the problem because it eats CPU power (though the live scan and everything is off, no intelliguard, etc.) the only problem is the stupid program always says you have to restart the computer to completely shut it down (which usually doesn't shut it down, plus now when I am hitting exit it's not doing anything). So unless I restart and lose the 18 hours...I'm not sure though why it generally doesn't even work when I restart before I had to uninstall it I'll have to call the company I can't be uninstalling every time I run Poser lol.

Now the new weird thing - going on 18 hours. The process bar was gone, it looked like it was finished, but the file menu is all grayed out. I read on the forums there could be a dialog box or whatever still open but I couldn't get it to do anything (btw does anyone know the shortcut for export image?) so I moved the render around on the screen and screen captured parts of it at a time pasting it in Photoshop (I figured I could at least do it that way and piece it together in PS, it would just take forever) and realized the bottom of the render wasn't there so it didn't finish. So I wanted to at least finish capturing it so I could maybe try doing an area render later of the bottom part. But as I moved it back to the beginning spot again on the left I saw there was more picture, so it's still rendering! But there is no progress bar...

I should try an area render though I remember before to go faster on my laptop I would area render parts and then paste it together because I could get part of it to render at least at a time. I just hope that if I save the file and close out it saves the render in the preview to work on later seems like sometimes it doesn't do that.

So now I guess I just wait and if it's not done in a couple hours I'll leave it for the morning and hope that the computer doesn't shut down in the middle of the night or I will lose all of the progress, including the partial render since I can't save the file...

SOLO: As for switching it to sree3d, how do I do that and what will it tell me?

Thanks

Update after 16+ hours it's done. But that is way too long. Hopefully stopping Spyware Doctor will make a difference but I'm too tired to work with it tonight. Though I did send through another slightly smaller render so hopefully at least something will get done overnight. I'll post again when I see if it makes a difference. By the way, I checked the CPU power it wasn't real high it was somewhere under 20% I think. I can't remember if that was during or after the render though, I'll have to check it tomorrow when I start something else.

Quote - In the meantime though I don't think I am able to add any more ram without the 64bit. So going on 9 hours for an 8x10 render with occlusion isn't abnormal? (it's still running). I would not use it but after comparing now I think all my old renders look like plastic, probably because I'm not good with lights. Adding the ambient seemed to solve my problems and make it more realistic.

I'll attach one of the old renders so you all can see how much is in the image which isn't much. The last times I rendered it I hid a lot of the stuff in the photo I didn't need (like the unused tombstones)

Large pixel dimensions combined with ray-traced effects like AO and high quality settings can take a long time.  If the resulting image is not worth the time invested, try to reduce quality settings in such a way that you still get a good picture, but reduce the render time.  An unnecessary number of raytrace bounces will bog you down, for instance.   I've had a couple of my computers run four and a half days to render out 40sec of video frames, but that was hi-def.

I have had the CPU meter peg out;  that is of no concern to me.  What I nervously watch is the RAM usage.  Windows allocates so much memory to the Poser executable (the program) and so much to the render engine.  If you exceed the allocation limit or run out of total RAM, you crash.

I'm only rendering a single image. I'm wondering though for some reason if that specific scene maybe the props are higher polygon count or something, because I got done rendering the smaller size (2000x1600) of a different piece (this one had V4, Millennium Dragon 2, a set (I think it was Gothic ruins or something) and a fire ball and magic ball thing, plus the AO, and it rendered faster then the last one at that size (though I don't know for sure exactly how long the other one took since it was over night) but this one was in I think less then 3 hours.  Trying now in the bigger size for overnight. I don't know though because this file gave me a problem before too, so the big one might take 16 or whatever hours again.

Right now I looked I have a Core 2 Duo 2.6ghz so if I upgrade that to a quad that should make a big difference? I thought quad was much better (4 cores compared to 2) but the speeds are around 2.6 still so is that just as important? Also another dumb question, how do you know if Vista is 64 bit does it say specifically or can they all be? I was looking on some sites and only saw the ultimate I think it was in 64 bit. Though I see if I go to NewEgg they have free Windows 7 upgrades. Only problem is looks like most of the ones I have found are full windows not upgrades (I only need the upgrade) and they are OEM so you can only load it on one computer I guess? Lol I don't know. I've never even installed an OS I just know we have more than one computer we have XP for but I don't know if it came with more than one license or if we bought more than one copy or what. Other than one of them I got from college for $10 education verison I don't think you can upgrade that? I have to look.

graphics cards have no effect whatsoever if you are doing a software( Firefly) render.

If you want to switch to Sree3D right click your preview window and choose Sree3D. But that will only change your preview window back to software, rendering is already done in software, graphics card has no effect what so ever on it.

Another thing came to my mind. Is cooling of your system adequate? Maybe CPU fan failed, or got bogged down with dust. When you start your render it heats up, and to prevent overheating it reduces it's speed. You can use Everest program to check CPU temperatures and fan speeds, or Core Temp which is free, but only displays core temperatures, not fan speeds. I have Pentium Dual Core (basically same as Core 2 Duo, but with somewhat less cache memory and without virtualization technology) overclocked from 2.5 to 3.5GHz and my temps go up to 60°C on one core and 54°C on second core  while rendering (they don't need to have same temperatures), while idling first core is around 43°C and second is at 37°C.

Also, overheating could make applications crash, so maybe that is what's troubling you. As you said, over specific resolution makes rendering crash. Thing is, the bigger the picture, the longer it takes to render. The longer it renders, the more heat it produces. When it reaches critical temp render crashes.

That makes a lot of sense. I'm going to have it looked at I think it needs cleaned too and I will look at trying to find out the temperature. I was wrong about the other render though, I realized that I had left checked match scene size or whatever rather than exact resolution so it wasn't rendering big which was why it was faster. I'm rendering the second one now I think i started it around 2am or so so it's past 12 hours now. Then when it's done hopefully I can figure out if there is something wrong. I just wanted to at least send the other render to go overnight so it would take last time. I've had a few pictures I've had waiting to be able to render them for over a year, I got a little excited with it not locking up lol.

If you want a great little free monitoring utility, try this one out:
www.cpuid.com/hwmonitor.php

It monitors temps of your CPU cores, your video card, hard drives, motherboard, and  voltages too.
It doesn't do anything, such as changing fan speed, just let's you see what's going on.

Hey, i have used render in Poser 7 with my 9800GT which is in fact and 8800GT (cheeky Nvidia just rebadged it)
Anyway I have not that the problem you speak of, also i think the second poster is correct, rendering is mostly a CPU task not a GPU one....
So i reckon your card is fine. :)

Quote -
rendering is mostly a CPU task not a GPU one....

Correction, rendering is ENTIRELY a CPU task.
Most of what you see happening in your viewport is being done by your CPU too. The video card is using OpenGL to display lights and textures, transparencies, floor shadows, and shaders, and so on. 

Most, but not all of the display updating when you pose or move the camera is being handled by your processor. Your video card has to actually refresh all the scene elements in your display, but it's your processor that's handling the movement of the camera and the body parts. And it's not doing a very efficient job of it either, just like all 3D programs barely tap into the power of the GPU and OpenGL, and instead put most of the display burden on the processor.

If they wrote it in a way where the GPU was being used for everything display-wise, and also contributed to the rendering, Poser would be considerably faster than it is now.

Attached Link: Quadro preview compared to gamer card preview - cottage interior

This image (linked above) is a merged overlay of two preview screenshots;  the area within the green dot boundary is the preview seen via an nVidia Quadro FX5800, and the area outside the boundary is the preview as seen via a pair of nVidia GeForce 8800GTX in SLI.

Compare:
*  the tiled materials on the wall, floor, and ceiling.

*  the matrix material (animated flames) on the ceiling lamp.

*  the graphite-grey procedural material on the doors.

*  anti-aliasing on the ceiling joists

Attached Link: Quadro preview compared to gamer card preview - cottage roof dormer

Attached Link: Quadro preview compared to gamer card preview - "Forest Ruin" arch

Important note:  Not all Quadros will preview like this Quadro FX5800.  The 3600M in my notebook does not, for example.

I am not implying that the 8800 is insufficient;  mine has always served well for Poser use.  I was making "wishlist" recommendations - 64bit OS, 8Gb RAM, with a Quadro would be great!

3600m is based on 8800m GPU and FX5800 has the same GPU as GTX 280. They're in fact the same cards. Only difference between quadro and geforce is graphics card description in firmware so it would only take geforce or quadro drivers. Unless you nudge it a little to install quadro drivers.

I don't have cottage model, or forest ruin so I can't try it, but what are preview render setting in both cases? Cottage interior looks like it has different textures for floor and ceiling for gamer (or beter said regular) card case when compared to quadro, and wall texture is strectched across the wall, i.e. like wrong U and V scale settings in material room.

Here's my example. First is with default render preview settings, and second is with maxed settings.

With the quadro pictures - that is for preview though not the final render, right? Sorry I was a little confused.

Ok update, after 22+ hours I looked at the 2nd render and it was still in the same place it was after half that. I looked at the task manager and CPU was at 100% which is why it wasn't moving (though still not locked up) so I cancelled it. Luckily what I rendered so far stayed there so I could area render. So I assume I should get a better processor. So here is the thing though - I started doing area renders, fairly big chunks at a time (as much as I could get to fit in the 800x1000 window as I moved it around) and each piece is only taking about 15 or so minutes (approx. I left to do other things but if I sit there I do see it move). Going at this rate if I stayed at the computer and kept moving it constantly I estimate it would be done in a few hours or maybe even less, so obviously the computer is able to handle the file, just not the whole file at once (again I'm assuming it's the processor) is there a way to render a block at a time without manually moving the render around (since you get lines when you start new areas so you have to go back and do second renders over the lines to overlay in PS and because it's annoying) or is there a setting that I need to change that would fix the problem (thread? bucket size?) It did say it was using about 3gb of ram in the task manager so at least that seems ok. Once I'm done I'm going to run all those scans you guys have talked about though the computer doesn't feel hot.  I'll post this question again about the processor:

Right now I looked I have a Core 2 Duo 2.6ghz so if I upgrade that to a quad that should make a big difference? I thought quad was much better (4 cores compared to 2) but the speeds are around 2.6 still so is that (the speed) just as important or is it more by the number of cores? Also another dumb question, how do you know if Vista is 64 bit does it say specifically or can they all be? I was looking on some sites and only saw the ultimate I think it was in 64 bit.

Attached Link: system info, 32bit Vista Ultimate notebook

Correct.  Same pz3 (scene file), previewed on two different video cards.  The point is the ability to see -in preview- how a tiled material will apply, and that this is a convenience when adjusting material settings because you see the results of any change immediately.  The 8800 previews as if a single image is stretched over the entire wall, even though the Uscale and Vscale are set the same as in the Quadro preview (remember, same pz3).  The wall, ceiling, floor, roof, and the stone arch were each textured with (their own) single tiling image, and the Uscale and Vscale were set to tile the image across the material zone.  So, from one floor tile image, I cover the entire floor.

If someone with the newer generation of GeForce cards sees this manner of preview with tiled materials, please post it.

Quote - Right now I looked I have a Core 2 Duo 2.6ghz so if I upgrade that to a quad that should make a big difference? I thought quad was much better (4 cores compared to 2) but the speeds are around 2.6 still so is that (the speed) just as important or is it more by the number of cores? Also another dumb question, how do you know if Vista is 64 bit does it say specifically or can they all be? I was looking on some sites and only saw the ultimate I think it was in 64 bit.

On a 64bit sytem, more cores is the easier way to greater overall render speed.  But on a 32bit system, all the cores must share a limited amount of RAM, so you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.
If you didn't specify a 64bit system when you bought the computer, it is probably 32bit.  Mouse down to the lower left of the screen to the Start button, and follow Start/control panel/system and it show pop up a window which details what OS you have.  In XP, you'll see a plain text window;  in Vista, a graphic window.  See link above for an example;  when you see no reference to 32bit or 64bit, it is 32bit.

Attached Link: sytem info, specifying a 64bit OS

Attached Link: preview render settings to get the 8800 to tile materials ("enable hardware shading")

I don't have cottage model, or forest ruin so I can't try it, but what are preview render setting in both cases? Cottage interior looks like it has different textures for floor and ceiling for gamer (or beter said regular) card case when compared to quadro, and wall texture is strectched across the wall, i.e. like wrong U and V scale settings in material room.

Here's my example. First is with default render preview settings, and second is with maxed settings.***

Thank you, Solo761!***   Despite having two 8800GTX in SLI, Poser's default is to not use hardware shading in the preview render settings;  tick the enable hardware shading box and you get tiled materials!  Hurray!  Apparently, of my machines, only the big Quadro sweet-talked Poser into engaging hardware shading by default.  I would think that Scullygirl's 8800 should be well able to handle hardware shading for Poser.

P.S.  the elvish cottage is a freebie:  http://faeriewylde.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=32043
leafy recliner chairs for cottage's  balcony:  http://faeriewylde.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=32153
gazebo and pergola causeway for elvish cottage:  http://faeriewylde.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=32017

I was under the impression we were discussing gaming-level video cards with hardware texturing turned on. A Quadro offers nothing in Poser that a consumer-level gaming card can't. In the Poser world, an 8800 series is every bit as powerful as a Quadro or even a GTX series video card, as Poser makes only minimal usage of a GPU's capabilities.
I have not seen one shred of performance increase between my 8800 GTS and my GTX 285 in Poser.
In games, hell yeah, HUGE difference, but not in Poser and not in Lightwave or Maya either.

Quote -
Despite having two 8800GTX in SLI, Poser's default is to not use hardware shading in the preview render settings

SLI doesn't work in any windowed applications, unless they're written specifically to use SLI.
SLI and Crossfire technology only works for games. Applications will only use one of the video cards, and it might actually create a bottleneck as the PCI x16 bus speed might be slowed down when a second card is added.

Quote - On a 64bit sytem, more cores is the easier way to greater overall render speed.  But on a 32bit system, all the cores must share a limited amount of RAM, so you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.
If you didn't specify a 64bit system when you bought the computer, it is probably 32bit.  Mouse down to the lower left of the screen to the Start button, and follow Start/control panel/system and it show pop up a window which details what OS you have.  In XP, you'll see a plain text window;  in Vista, a graphic window.  See link above for an example;  when you see no reference to 32bit or 64bit, it is 32bit.

Well yes I have XP now (that doesn't even come in 64bit does it?) So if I'm understanding you right, to get the full potential of the quad core you need 64bit. But if f I can only afford to upgrade one thing though (for now) is it better to get the processor first or upgrade to Vista 64bit first?

They did release a 64 bit XP, a few years ago, but XP support is going to continue only for so much longer. It might be dropped by the end of 2010 or so.
It's up to you of course, which to get first, but you're definitely better off having both a 64 bit operating system as well as a quad core processor.
Personally I'd recommend waiting for Windows 7 official release, and not buy into Vista now. Then again, you could get Vista now and simply upgrade later, might save a little money that way.
Or you could download the Windows 7 RC 1 from Microsoft and use it for free until March of 2010 when it expires. That's what I did, and I don't regret it for a minute. I loved Vista, but Windows 7 is so much better in so many ways.

Attached Link: Microsoft XP Support Cycle

Ok well that's cool. I haven't been paying attention, but it's good to know at least.

Quote - Well yes I have XP now (that doesn't even come in 64bit does it?) So if I'm understanding you right, to get the full potential of the quad core you need 64bit. But if f I can only afford to upgrade one thing though (for now) is it better to get the processor first or upgrade to Vista 64bit first?

If you are cramped by lack of rendering capacity, then I think your best option would be to wait (and save up some money), then upgrade to a 64bit version of Windows 7 and upgrade to Poser Pro 2010 (which will have a 64bit render engine).  If you can get 6Gb or 8Gb of RAM in the chassis, that would be worthwhile.

Going back to your initial post, regarding rendering in large dimensions with IBL/occlusion in P7, it is probably the ambient occlusion which is eating up render time. But the limiting factor is Poser 7, more than your machine.  You really already have as much hardware as can be brought to bear using Poser 7.  It is a 32bit app, and not as good at juggling memory as the high-dollar apps.  You may have to search for a combination of render settings which will give you a good image without running your machine out of memory.

One option is if you're doing these large sizes for print, just do a test. Render at a considerably smaller size than you're attempting. Then enlarge in Photoshop (Image > Image Size > Pixel Dimensions - be sure to select Bicubic Smoother in the Resample Image options at the bottom).

I don't know what print application you're aiming at, but if it's just for your own computer printer, the quality of PS's included enlargement capabilities is probably well within the quality range you need, and will save you huge headaches in matters of render times and system resources. Within reason (trying to enlarge by 10fold isn't likely to work), PS enlargement should do for other printing applications, as well.

I have begun to do this myself, and have so far found that PS gets a very passable quality with enlargement well past 2x the size in both directions (remember, that means well over 4x actual size in terms of square inches). That's gonna do wonders for your render time, obviously, and PS can do the enlargement in seconds.

Ideally, I want to render at larger sizes and reduce; my philosophy is start at the highest quality you can. But you also have to work with the hardware you've got, and you may be surprised what you can do if you change your approach like this.

Quote - They did release a 64 bit XP, a few years ago, but XP support is going to continue only for so much longer. It might be dropped by the end of 2010 or so.
It's up to you of course, which to get first, but you're definitely better off having both a 64 bit operating system as well as a quad core processor.
Personally I'd recommend waiting for Windows 7 official release, and not buy into Vista now. Then again, you could get Vista now and simply upgrade later, might save a little money that way.
Or you could download the Windows 7 RC 1 from Microsoft and use it for free until March of 2010 when it expires. That's what I did, and I don't regret it for a minute. I loved Vista, but Windows 7 is so much better in so many ways.

Waiting for Windows 7 makes no difference because Windows Vista comes with a free upgrade to Windows 7 now (which might be better in case I hate W7 anyway lol. Question though - is the free W7 version full of a lot of problems, and also, if I install Vista or that W7 now, do you have to reformat to install the OS? Because that's another thing I don't want to do it twice if you do.

Ok so still my main question - is Windows upgrade alone going to help with Poser speed at all? I know you need all the pieces but if I can only afford one I want to get what will make the most difference for me now. Or even if it would make more of a difference getting Poser 8 first (don't care about Pro I won't wait that long, plus don't even know if I need Pro)

Quote -
If you are cramped by lack of rendering capacity, then I think your best option would be to wait (and save up some money), then upgrade to a 64bit version of Windows 7 and upgrade to Poser Pro 2010 (which will have a 64bit render engine).  If you can get 6Gb or 8Gb of RAM in the chassis, that would be worthwhile.

Going back to your initial post, regarding rendering in large dimensions with IBL/occlusion in P7, it is probably the ambient occlusion which is eating up render time. But the limiting factor is Poser 7, more than your machine.  You really already have as much hardware as can be brought to bear using Poser 7.  It is a 32bit app, and not as good at juggling memory as the high-dollar apps.  You may have to search for a combination of render settings which will give you a good image without running your machine out of memory.

As I said in the last comment, not sure I even need to get Pro (as I only render stills and therefore can't render on two computers at once) and the W7 upgrade is free. As for the second what you are saying about P7 makes it sound like if I upgrade stuff I would get more of a difference upgrading to P8 first anyway.

Like I said I'm looking for which will give me the most benefit now: windows or processor. If changing to 64bit isn't going to make a difference with P7, then I should get P8 probably first, unless the processor makes a big difference. Though I'm probably going to be able to afford P8 and one thing. So it's probably P8 and a processor or P8 and Windows 64bit. I will eventually get the opposite plus more RAM, but i want to do what I can now.

Quote - One option is if you're doing these large sizes for print, just do a test. Render at a considerably smaller size than you're attempting. Then enlarge in Photoshop (Image > Image Size > Pixel Dimensions - be sure to select Bicubic Smoother in the Resample Image options at the bottom).

I don't know what print application you're aiming at, but if it's just for your own computer printer, the quality of PS's included enlargement capabilities is probably well within the quality range you need, and will save you huge headaches in matters of render times and system resources. Within reason (trying to enlarge by 10fold isn't likely to work), PS enlargement should do for other printing applications, as well.

I have begun to do this myself, and have so far found that PS gets a very passable quality with enlargement well past 2x the size in both directions (remember, that means well over 4x actual size in terms of square inches). That's gonna do wonders for your render time, obviously, and PS can do the enlargement in seconds.

Ideally, I want to render at larger sizes and reduce; my philosophy is start at the highest quality you can. But you also have to work with the hardware you've got, and you may be surprised what you can do if you change your approach like this.

I always do high quality prints at 300dpi 8x10 for my portfolio, sometimes with my Epson photo, sometimes lab prints. I have tried 200dpi it looked like crap with the one I did. Maybe you do it different though, I render at 72dpi and just change it after - meaning 8x10 I render at 2400x3000 I don't select a different dpi. Unless you have a better way?

I'm just saying enlarge it in Photoshop. I'm going to upload an enlarged image to my gallery in a few minutes; I'll try to remember to give you a heads-up here to let you look at the quality. But basically all I'm saying is if you need a 2400x3000 image, try rendering at, say 1000x1250, then go into PS and enlarge it to 2400x3000. It should render in less than 20% of the time (7,200,000 vs 1,250,000 pixels).

Re: Vista vs Windows 7: I still use XP Pro, but everyone I've talked to who would know say that Windows 7 is more stable than Vista ever was. There's a reason why people call Vista the Beta for 7... it was probably released before its time; apparently, 7 is what Vista was always supposed to be.

Re: Poser Pro. The advantage of PP is not simply whether or not you have a render farm (I don't; everything is done on one machine). Unlike P8, Poser Pro can render in the background and render in queue separately; more to the point of this discussion, it has a 64 bit renderer, and therefore can take advantage of all that extra RAM, while P8 cannot. (P8's performance advantages over earlier versions have to do with the fact that e.g. it makes better use of your multiple cores.)

I should add that even if you're not happy with an upscale from 1000x1250 to 2400x3000, you'll almost certainly be satisfied with a compromise. Even a render at 1700x2125 is going to be about 1/2 the pixels (edit: i.e. half the pixels of 2400x3000) and therefore not much more than half the render time, and I doubt you'll be able to tell that you've enlarged it, quality-wise.

The image is up.

Pay no attention to the black spots on the dress - those are raytracing artifacts in the render, not effects of the enlargement. The page indicates how much I enlarged by.

Quote - Ok so still my main question - is Windows upgrade alone going to help with Poser speed at all? I know you need all the pieces but if I can only afford one I want to get what will make the most difference for me now. Or even if it would make more of a difference getting Poser 8 first (don't care about Pro I won't wait that long, plus don't even know if I need Pro)

Going for 64 bit windows is not going to increas CPU power. In some cases it even reduces it. 32 bit application handles data in 32 bit packets (called words), if application is 64 bit (and of course OS is 64 bit) that word is 64 bit's in size. In cases where that data is larger than 32 bits we get speed increase. Logically, 32 bit OS needs 2 words (2 * 32), and 64 bit can push that data in one word. But in cases where that data is smaller than 32 bits 64 bit OS will have more overhead (wasted space) and that decreases it's speed, or better said efficiency. But in either case, that increase/decrease is only few percent. Nothing to worry about in either case.

Quad core CPU would decrease render time. But it would not cut it by half. Poser render is not that efficient. P7 can divide the picture in 4 parts. Then every core gets one quarter to render. When it's finished it idles.
Btw. do you have multicore support enabled in poser? It's done under general preferences, turn separate process rendering on and move slider to max. Even if you currently have only 2 cores you can benefit from setting it to render as if you have 4 cores. If you set it to only two each core would get half the picture, if one finishes it's part it has to wait  until other one is done. If you set it to 4, picture is divided in 4 parts, as I already said. But you have "only" two cores. So the render starts on first two quarters, last two quarters wait until one core is done, when one quarter is done it goes to third quarter and so on until it's done. In the end, there's less down time.

Poser 8 improved on this, it divides picture in many parts and then renders them sequentially, like most renders do.

But before you buy anything. Have you checked CPU temperatures. Maybe overheating really is the culprit here and you just need to clean your CPU cooler or buy new one (which is much cheaper then buying windows or new CPU). How many lights you have in your scene, do they cast raytraced shadows, ambient occlusion? All this could influence your render time. And we're only guessing since we haven't seen what exactly you want to render.

Quote - Going for 64 bit windows is not going to increas CPU power. In some cases it even reduces it. 32 bit application handles data in 32 bit packets (called words), if application is 64 bit (and of course OS is 64 bit) that word is 64 bit's in size. In cases where that data is larger than 32 bits we get speed increase. Logically, 32 bit OS needs 2 words (2 * 32), and 64 bit can push that data in one word. But in cases where that data is smaller than 32 bits 64 bit OS will have more overhead (wasted space) and that decreases it's speed, or better said efficiency. But in either case, that increase/decrease is only few percent. Nothing to worry about in either case.

Quad core CPU would decrease render time. But it would not cut it by half. Poser render is not that efficient. P7 can divide the picture in 4 parts. Then every core gets one quarter to render. When it's finished it idles.
Btw. do you have multicore support enabled in poser? It's done under general preferences, turn separate process rendering on and move slider to max. Even if you currently have only 2 cores you can benefit from setting it to render as if you have 4 cores. If you set it to only two each core would get half the picture, if one finishes it's part it has to wait  until other one is done. If you set it to 4, picture is divided in 4 parts, as I already said. But you have "only" two cores. So the render starts on first two quarters, last two quarters wait until one core is done, when one quarter is done it goes to third quarter and so on until it's done. In the end, there's less down time.

Poser 8 improved on this, it divides picture in many parts and then renders them sequentially, like most renders do.

But before you buy anything. Have you checked CPU temperatures. Maybe overheating really is the culprit here and you just need to clean your CPU cooler or buy new one (which is much cheaper then buying windows or new CPU). How many lights you have in your scene, do they cast raytraced shadows, ambient occlusion? All this could influence your render time. And we're only guessing since we haven't seen what exactly you want to render.

Ok, so you are saying that getting windows 64 bit without getting Poser Pro isn't going to make a difference (or do you mean P8 or Poser Pro) assuming unless when I get 64bit I add 4 more gigs of ram, that 64 bit alone is not going to make a difference, but getting a quad core will?

Once I get a chance to sit down to render something again I will run the thing to check the temp (I'm assuming it's no good to check it if it isn't rendering as it wouldn't be hot now). I do think I have the multicore turned on - isn't that the threads option? I think I read set it to double the amount of cores so I had it on 4. I will maybe eventually get Poser Pro, I just won't want to wait, plus you get the full price of P8 towards it or whatever from what I understand as since I don't have any Poser Pro that would be the only way I would get the upgrade price.

As for the lights, I think there was 3? I used ambient occlusion, not exactly sure of the settings I'll have to check, just thought I would at least write back now as I'll be out for the day. I actually used the tutorial from aerysoul.com exactly so it's whatever settings were used there (the photo and the info is actually inthe forum as I had posted questions then) but I will check everything and get back to you when I get back. Check all the preferences too:)

As for the quality of the render:::: I will try rendering a piece at the other size and then compare the difference. It's probably just me I tend to be picky lol.

Thanks everyone for the continued support.

Getting 64 bit OS will only help your poser to allocate more memory, it won't speed up your render time. I meant P8, not Poser Pro, Poser Pro is more like P7 with 64 bit support (and few other doodads). P7 and Poser Pro can break render to up to 4 pieces and then assign a piece to free core (i.e. if you have more than 4 cores, they're going to be wasted), P8 breaks it to larger number (let's say 50, just for the sake of conversation) so cores are better utilized if you have more than one.

Yes that's the thread option, it wouldn't be bad idea to know what are your idle temperatures. If cooling is failing they're also going to be above the norm. Yes, that's a good rule for threads, if you have two cores they'll be better utilized with 4 threads (I think I explained it somewhat in previous post). But that's also the problem with quad core. Max number of threads in P7 (and Poser Pro) is 4. You can't set it to 8 to better utilize them, you'll need P8 (or Poser Pro 2010 when it comes out next year) for that.

3 Lights really don't seem that much. I also mostly use 3 lights, one with ambient occlusion, one with no shadows and one with raytraced shadows. Render times vary from 10 to 20 minutes. Depends on number of chars, props and on which computer I am (I have one 2.8 and one 3.5GHz, both core 2 duo). 

Ok, I'm back. I ran the program now without rendering. So you know the circumstances, the computer has been on all day but I haven't been on for a few hours, however I did just now open Poser and I have IE open (but not rendering or anything). I'm not sure what temps you need, so here is the link to a screen capture of CPUID thing.
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t299/merlina-thalia/testhw.jpg

As for the lights, etc...

Pic two (which had more stuff in it, ie V4, hair, clothing, and props, Mill Dragon (I think v2), 2 fireball type things, and the set (some kind of ruins I forget).  First I have the 3 original lights - they are set to off but I didn't delete them, I don't know if that makes a difference. Then I have

1. IBL_Fill which has diffuse IBL, AO, but no shadows
2. IBL_Skin which has the same as above
3. Specular light which is an infinite light with depth-map shadows (no diffuse IBL nor AO)
4. Infinite light which is another infinite light but has ray-traced shadows (no diffuse IBL nor AO)

Sorry I thought there were 3. I think the first render had 3.

Preferences is set to separate process with four threads and for the render settings I have cast shadows and raytracing checked. (firefly at the highest quality)

I can't tie up the computer right now but as soon as I can set it to render I will send the temps - I'll try it by rendering a piece like i was and then letting it try to render the whole thing for a while.