since when is 60 Gigs worth the hard drive not enough space to render a simple 640x640 image? Is there a setting I should know about?

60 gigs is enough, that cant be the reason.Give more information what happens, about your computer,OS,Ram..

Well.... I can think of lots of reasons. The most likely is that it's nothing to do with the disk space. When confused, Poser tends to run home, and blame the hard disk space. So if it says out of disk space, and you have some left (and I'm assuming you've made sure that some [at least, say, 10 Meg] is free), then treat it as an unknown error. The best bet is that some file it exepcts is missing, but, like thgeisel said above, you'll need to give more details on what you are doing before anyone can pin it down more than that.

One thing suggested to me when I had this very problem was the lack of the patch installed. I reinstalled the patch and got exactly 3 renders before it crapped out on me again. My opinion is it's a Win2K problem. If you find the solution, please post it here :)

i have win2k, 756 mb ram, and about 20gig free diskspace. have done several renderings in 3000x3000 pix, with no problems whatsoever.

It's a weird one, that's for sure. Anyone NOT on Win2K have the problem????

I'm betting the problem is that your windows virtual memory page file is too small (it sounds like you are using Windows.) I had the same problem when trying to render to a separate window. Anything larger than 1300x1300 triggered this error. Increasing my virtual memory minimum setting from 192 to 210 megs fixed the problem and now I can render up to Poser's 4090x4090 maximum. The actual number required may vary from system to system so you may have to experiment a bit. BTW, this is a Windows setting, not a Poser setting. If you are unsure how to change this just ask but also tell me which version of Windows you are using.

Wow I spent 5 minutes trying to answer this question, only to see my message is missing. I won't re-write all that. I knew as soon as I saw the message title that the user had Windows 2000 Professional. I only experienced that problem once with Windows XP Home Edition. I think I rebooted the computer and all was fine after. It's a Windows 2000 problem.

knights advises "It's a Windows 2000 problem." With all respect I do not believe this is true. Certainly the problem may appear in W2k but it is not exclusive to that OS as the above statement suggests. One of my notebooks runs w2k and has never exhibited this difficulty. I just purchased a considerably more powerful notebook computer which came with Win XP. This newer one was where my Poser "out of disk space" render message appeared. As per my previous message, increasing the size of the virtual memory file solved the problem.

This problem occurs when I have some other applications chewing up RAM space or my PC dropped a stitch in the middle of something producing a mini runaway. Just save and reboot. It'll go away..... usually

I'm running W2KPro 60gig slave 10Gig master 448M RAM. The nail on the head for the OS no doubt...I'll hafta look in to this virtual mem thing and see if i can fix it focusing on the OS instead of poser. Thanks for the help folx. And I hope I can get this issue resolved.

This problem appears most often with Windows 2000 Pro. I never saw the problem with Windows ME, and only once with Windows XP. Do the math. By the way, my first name is Ron. My last name is Knights. Would you do me the courtesy of using my First Name (Ron), rather than just my last name? I was in the military, and they always used the last name. I grew to hate that.

BTW, I might be in the minority here, but Poser 4.0.3 is pretty solid on my system with Win2000 Pro. I never even checked the virtual memory until today, but it is at 768 Mb, same as the RAM I have, good choice I thought. I seldom render over about 2400 x 2400, but I did open and render a 460 Mb PZ3 as a torture test.

Just one more data point - I had this problem early on with Poser4 on W2K Pro - increased the virtual memory file a couple of times and have had no problems in 6-7 months...

Ron, I didn't know what you were talking about in respect to "first name" until I reread my post. My apologies. My experience is that Renderosity often times out on me when I post messages. Therefor I write my messages in notepad and then paste them into the Renderosity message box when done. I must not have copied my entire reply when copying to the clipboard. Normally I address to the displayed name, in your case I would have intended to say "ronknights". I will try to remember that you prefer "ron" but I have a notoriously poor memory. As for "doing the math" I had no way of knowing your numbers. You said only that it happened to you once with XP but failed to state how often it occured in w2k. My personal experience was never with w2k but frequently with XP so by my "math" I'd have to say it's an XP problem. In reality the problem may happen with both w2k and XP as XP is simply a refinement of w2k. The reason I never experienced failure with w2k is that my w2k virtual memory was already set at 288 megs. It seems that w2k/xp and Poser 4 may both use the same page file at the same time. If virtual memory is set too low it results in this error. This double paging effect does not seem to occur with previous win versions (me,98, 95) as they are fundamentally different at the internal program level. Several people here have stated that the problem went away upon rebooting. As this clears the page file contents it suggests that my analysis may be correct. Since my previous posting I decided to visit Curious Lab's web site to see if they had anything to say about this. I found that they have reached the same conlcusion that I did. Certainly I intended no insult towards you. I simply did not want people to conclude that they would have extreme difficulties with xp when the solution is probably a mere adjustment of virtual memory size. Today's operating systems and other software are so complex that even though 2 people may use the same software and hardware setups they may have very different experiences depending upon individual settings. This makes generalizations potentially misleading.

jval: I guess I didn't think you were trying to be insulting.. i just had to react to my last name being used. OK, as for Windows 2000, versus Windows XP in relation to Poser: If you do a search of the Poser Forum for this same sort of problem, you'll see that the consensus is that this problem is somehow related to Windows 2000 and Poser working together. Many of us will never bother to adjust our swap file size. We are told that more recent versions of Windows do the best possible job of taking care of virtual memory for us. If memory serves, others had messed with those settings, and it didn't help much or at all. I was hit many times by that out of disk space error... too many times...with Windows 2000. I got it only once with Windows XP. Windows XP is more than a refinement of Windows 2000. Windows XP is the first version of the Windows operating system that radically breaks free of the old "legacy" curse. Windows XP doesn't try to remain backward compatible for DOS and Windows 3.0 users, etc. Windows XP is the first Windows operating system that is essentially the same for Home and Pro users. There never was such a correlation between Windows 2000 and Windows 98 or Windows ME. At any rate, I wish you the best.

Hello again Ron (See? I got it right!). I'm not trying to argue so please take this as further explanation re XP vs w2K. >If you do a search of the Poser Forum for this same sort of problem, you'll see that the consensus is that this problem is somehow related to Windows 2000 and Poser working together. I didn't actually do this search. However, a concensus of opinion is not necessarily the same thing as correct. The immediate problem is related to the page file although it is true that this is indirectly caused by w2k's different manner of handling virtual memory as compared to the methods employed by the w95/98/me family. >Many of us will never bother to adjust our swap file size. I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately this has no effect or bearing on the cause of the problem, only one's probablity of success in dealing with it. >We are told that more recent versions of Windows do the best possible job of taking care of virtual memory for us. It may well do so though I am not inclined to believe everything I am told. But the problem is not just the virtual memory. It is that both W2k/XP and Poser attempt to control it simultaneously. Virtual memory is the proximate cause, not the immediate one. >If memory serves, others had messed with those settings, and it didn't help much or at all. I was hit many times by that out of disk space error... too many times...with Windows 2000. I got it only once with Windows XP. I suspect that your XP page file is set higher than it was on your w2k and perhaps the others just did not increase it sufficiently. Others in this thread have indicated that a sufficiently high setting eliminates the problem and this also turns out to be Curious Lab's official fix. >Windows XP doesn't try to remain backward compatible for DOS and Windows 3.0 users, etc. Actually, one of its selling points is that it is more compatible with older games and software than w2k. I don't say this. Microsoft does. w2k's compatibility with older software is not as good nor was it intended to be. However, numerous complaints prompted Microsoft to release patches improving this compatibility. >Windows XP is the first Windows operating system that is essentially the same for Home and Pro users. XP actually comes in 2 flavours- Home and Professional. The Pro version tends to have greater focus on networking, etc and even delivers a different interface look although this can be adjusted. You could think of it as Super-XP. Most home users are likely to have no need for the Pro version. >There never was such a correlation between Windows 2000 and Windows 98 or Windows ME. Correct. W2k was a completely different product intended for a different audience and was a further evolution of Windows NT. Internally it is very different than 95/98/me as it consists of completely different programming code. XP has a greater correlation with w2k than 95/98/me because at its heart it is the same thing. For various reasons Microsoft prefers that all users migrate to what is essentially the same system. But they realized that the casual user would likely be overwhelmed by w2k. Hence XP- which is basically w2k with a much friendlier face lift and a pile of consumer oriented additions. As it is, I hate the XP look so my XP looks almost the same as my old w2kpro. I've also trashed most of the consumer add-ons which are of no use to me. If it weren't for the Windows logo and the slightly different icons people using my system would think it was w2k. Thanks for the best wishes. I hope your future bodes well for you also and hope I haven't bored you with the above.

I had both Windows XP Professional (Release Candidates 1 & 2) and Windows XP Home Edition on my computer. I can't think of any difference in appearance between the two versions of Windows XP. If there are any such differences, they must be subtle. One of the hallmarks of Windows XP is that they got rid of the old DOS/Windows 3.x code. I'm not sure how to describe that concept at this time, but it has been highly publicized and acknowledged. I still go back to the fact that I only had the "out of space" problem once with Windows XP. I've never fiddled with the swap file settings, and in fact I believe that fiddling can often cause problems. In the past threads where this concept was discussed, the results were at best divided. I always look to forums and newsgroups for any information concerning computer-related issues that I need help with. I always look at what a person says, and get a good feeling how accurate or knowledgeable that person is. The Curious Labs responses to this issue did not inspire confidence. In at least one instance, they said they had no idea what caused the problem, or really how to fix it. They said to try the swap file thing, but that it might not always work. In fact others said it didn't. I have an idea Curious Labs didn't want to spend much time on this known issue for several reasons. Windows 2000 Pro is now "an old operating system," since Windows XP came out. Curious Labs is working on Poser 5, and most likely already made some changes to eliminate that problem in the future.