Hi everybody !

I have been using for years Poser 4, 5, 7. I have always been frustrated by the low number of characters I could display in a scene, especially as new characters show up at DAZ. But, since I have PoserPro 2012, I can't even make a scene with more than 2 generation 4 characters (V4/M4) with clothes and a few objects. If I try to add more, it crashes.

Yet, I guess I have a descent computer : i7, 3.4GHz, 4Mo RAM, Geforce GTX 250

So, I was wondering what I could do to improve this. Should I change from my Win XP Family to Win 7 pro ? Add more RAM ?

XP is definatly going to hold you back. Win7 is solid and usable. I always use Ultimate, but Pro should be fine.

You'll also want to try for at least 16GB of RAM.

My answer was to make an M3/V3 clone at 2600 Polys. :-)

Monitor your Ram usage.
Some dressed up, haired, & fully textured figures can add up RAM fast!!!!

Use lower poly figures, & use smaller textures for background figures.

You can render diffrent characters n layer them in Gimp.

I've seen Vue renders with a lot of characters.

1. Use low-poly characters for backgrounds fill.

2. Low-res textures (or even no texture at all, just a shader) if detail isn't important.

3. Some people make sure that the figure is stripped down to make it small...but then put the character in several different items of clothing loaded down with morphs and with polycounts exceeding that of the character itself. It doesn't do anything if you're proud your V4/M4 character is only 5 MB but then you stick them in 95MB worth of conforming clothing. If something is going to be on a background character, ruthlessly strip out all the morphs that aren't needed, human figure and clothing.

4. If it doesn't need to be clothing, don't use a conforming figure. There's no reason that figure way in the background wearing jeans and a tight t-shirt can't be wearing a skinsuit instead of seperate jeans and T-shirt conforming clothing.

5. Combine seperate renders layering on top of each other.

6. Upgrade your OS and get more RAM. Really. Running PoserPro 2012 on a 32bit machine with 4GB RAM is like using a lawnmower engine in your high-performance sportscar. Sure, you can get where you want to go...eventually...but it's not what you'd call an optimum experience.

thats odd. I  use Poser 7 and have done scenes with 2 V4 and 4 m3/m4 characters. Renders are not fast but it does do it.

as others have said, use RR figures for background , render in layers and composite in photosshop, render and create your own billboards.  

Be careful with high res textures if they are not required. 

Hi

Back in the old days when my computer really sucked I use to get around this by posing a character and rendering it, the first figure had to be in the background.

Then I would save it as a high res image and import it as the background image.

Then I would place another character in front of it and do it all over again etc.

This was especially helpful when animating multiple characters.

Do one save an .avi file, import the video file as a back ground and then place another animated character on top of it.

It takes some planning but it works.

But with your computers specs should not have problems rendering multiple figures.

You could add some ram, ram is pretty cheap any more, I remember when I paid $300 for 4 megabytes.  Now I have 32,000 megabytes, if it still cost that much I'd be broke.

Try running Defraggler and CCleaner.

http://www.piriform.com/products

Both of these programs are free.

I use both of these every day.

Defraggler is especially important with really large files and will let you chose to only defrag a few files in a few minutes not the whole drive taking hours.

I've had times when just defragmenting the one large file I was working on would make the difference between speedy processing and the computer freezing.

Mike

Quote - XP is definatly going to hold you back. Win7 is solid and usable. I always use Ultimate, but Pro should be fine.

You'll also want to try for at least 16GB of RAM.

My answer was to make an M3/V3 clone at 2600 Polys. :-)

Thanks for the answer. I didn't think I was so much under the required RAM. Good to know.

Quote - 1. Use low-poly characters for backgrounds fill.

1. Low-res textures (or even no texture at all, just a shader) if detail isn't important.

2. Some people make sure that the figure is stripped down to make it small...but then put the character in several different items of clothing loaded down with morphs and with polycounts exceeding that of the character itself. It doesn't do anything if you're proud your V4/M4 character is only 5 MB but then you stick them in 95MB worth of conforming clothing. If something is going to be on a background character, ruthlessly strip out all the morphs that aren't needed, human figure and clothing.

3. If it doesn't need to be clothing, don't use a conforming figure. There's no reason that figure way in the background wearing jeans and a tight t-shirt can't be wearing a skinsuit instead of seperate jeans and T-shirt conforming clothing.

4. Combine seperate renders layering on top of each other.

5. Upgrade your OS and get more RAM. Really. Running PoserPro 2012 on a 32bit machine with 4GB RAM is like using a lawnmower engine in your high-performance sportscar. Sure, you can get where you want to go...eventually...but it's not what you'd call an optimum experience.

I had noticed actually that not only high poly characters and high resolution textures required resources but also morphs. I can load and render 4 basic V4 without any problem. But if I add all the morphs I usually use, 2 is a maximum.

But yout point 6 definitely strikes my attention. It confirms what I suspected. My OS and RAM are really not sufficient.

Thank you for your help.

Quote - It's not worth the crashing , I export in png files and add the characters to each scean, using final cut editing. It seem's to work.

I thought of doing that many times but isn't it a problem for shadows ? How will shadow of the latest characters behave on the background ? I suppose it's OK for distant scenes but may be not for close characters ?

Quote - I've rendered eight fully-clothed characters (six of them DAZ adults) in Poser Pro 2010 on a machine with similar specs to yours, but only 8 GB of RAM. I've done this with no layering and while it's slow, it works, so I'm not sure what your issue really is. Here's an example.

This is very interesting ! I couldn't even imagine this was possible. So, it means my biggest problem would be the RAM. But I guess getting a 64 bits would still be better ?

Quote - thats odd. I  use Poser 7 and have done scenes with 2 V4 and 4 m3/m4 characters. Renders are not fast but it does do it.

as others have said, use RR figures for background , render in layers and composite in photosshop, render and create your own billboards.  

Be careful with high res textures if they are not required. 

I confirm what you say. I could also have more characters with Poser 7, depending on the morphs, clothes and textures I used. But since I have PoserPro 2012 I can no longer even open some of the scenes I created in Poser 7 with 3 M4/V4 characters. And those I can open won't render with shadows.

Going to 64 bit would be your first step.

A 32 bit OS can only handle 2GB RAM

Quote - Going to 64 bit would be your first step.

A 32 bit OS can only handle 2GB RAM

Thanks for this confirmation. I had forgotten that point.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I'd hate to give out incorrect information....

I believe that textures are a huge drain. I usually render at around 3 to 4k pixels on each side, so I need full resolution skin textures for closeups. And with big displacement, bump, and diffuse maps, even a single character can take the RAM over 4 gigs if I don't try to optimize. 

As I understand it, background people need tiny skin textures, if at all (you might get away with just using procedural skins).  Main characters a bit bigger. It depends on the resolution of your render. I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Same thing goes for clothing and prop textures. Make sure none of your background peeps is wearing a pair of pumps with 4096 x4096 pixel textures. :D

Other things to try...

Make the body parts covered by clothes invisible. I don't know if that actually works (or is it just a myth?), but if not, the other option is to strip the textures for those body parts. Why load what won't affect the scene?

Pose and clothe your figures and convert them all to props.

Render the hair in a separate pass. If you don't have the script to do it, you can must make the hair invisible in the main render, then turn the hair back on one by one, and area render just the head. Splice together in gimp/photoshop.

Finally....

Yeah, I'll echo the calls to get more RAM. I went from a 32 bit OS with 3 gigs of RAM to a 64 bit with 12, and I regularly use as much as is available. But I'm lazy and don't try to optimize. The time I save not worrying so much is worth the cost. I just got a new machine and will be boosting up to 32 gigs. Can't ever have too much. :)

Quote - Someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I'd hate to give out incorrect information....

I believe that textures are a huge drain. I usually render at around 3 to 4k pixels on each side, so I need full resolution skin textures for closeups. And with big displacement, bump, and diffuse maps, even a single character can take the RAM over 4 gigs if I don't try to optimize. 

As I understand it, background people need tiny skin textures, if at all (you might get away with just using procedural skins).  Main characters a bit bigger. It depends on the resolution of your render. I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Same thing goes for clothing and prop textures. Make sure none of your background peeps is wearing a pair of pumps with 4096 x4096 pixel textures. :D

Other things to try...

Make the body parts covered by clothes invisible. I don't know if that actually works (or is it just a myth?), but if not, the other option is to strip the textures for those body parts. Why load what won't affect the scene?

Pose and clothe your figures and convert them all to props.

Render the hair in a separate pass. If you don't have the script to do it, you can must make the hair invisible in the main render, then turn the hair back on one by one, and area render just the head. Splice together in gimp/photoshop.

Finally....

Yeah, I'll echo the calls to get more RAM. I went from a 32 bit OS with 3 gigs of RAM to a 64 bit with 12, and I regularly use as much as is available. But I'm lazy and don't try to optimize. The time I save not worrying so much is worth the cost. I just got a new machine and will be boosting up to 32 gigs. Can't ever have too much. :)

A couple of nice ideas ! I've never thought of turning characters into props. I'll try.

As for stripping textures under the clothes, I've tried many times without seing any improvement.

You wrote about a script to render in separate processes. Where can I find such a script ? Does it mean I could render different objects in the scene separately ?

But, I understand from what I read above that the really first step for me is to get a 64 bit and more RAM.

I get lots of people in my scenes.  I never strip down textures.  I do turn off HW shading and sometimes I have to use wireframe preview mode too.

"I thought of doing that many times but isn't it a problem for shadows ? How will shadow of the latest characters behave on the background ? I suppose it's OK for distant scenes but may be not for close characters?"

Import the image as a background, not a texture applied to a panel.

Poser doesn't rerender the backgroud so there's very little overhead.

the shadows don't show on the background, just don't keep moving the lights around or you will get different lighting on different figures.

You will have to try and not have the fact that shadows don't show on the background be a problem.  It could look strange if one character has a cast shadow on it and the one next to it doesn't.

Mike

Quote - "I thought of doing that many times but isn't it a problem for shadows ? How will shadow of the latest characters behave on the background ? I suppose it's OK for distant scenes but may be not for close characters?"

Import the image as a background, not a texture applied to a panel.

Poser doesn't rerender the backgroud so there's very little overhead.

the shadows don't show on the background, just don't keep moving the lights around or you will get different lighting on different figures.

You will have to try and not have the fact that shadows don't show on the background be a problem.  It could look strange if one character has a cast shadow on it and the one next to it doesn't.

Mike

Thanks for the hint. You're right. I need to try and see by myself.

Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

vilters is correct to say the default 32bit XP can only address 2GB but there is a mode that allows 3GB so if moving to a 64bit OS is not an option at the moment it is something to consider. I've not tried this but other's in the forum have so if of interest someone might be able to offer instructions on how to do this.

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think you'd agree, though, that you don't need a 4kx4k pixel head texture on every character in a crowded scene. :)

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think you'd agree, though, that you don't need a 4kx4k pixel head texture on every character in a crowded scene. :)

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think you'd agree, though, that you don't need a 4kx4k pixel head texture on every character in a crowded scene. :)

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think you'd agree, though, that you don't need a 4kx4k pixel head texture on every character in a crowded scene. :)

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think you'd agree, though, that you don't need a 4kx4k pixel head texture on every character in a crowded scene. :)

oOOOps.... server hiccup plus trigger finger... Yikes. Too late to delete the extras. Sorry about that.

oOOOps.... server hiccup plus trigger finger... Yikes. Too late to delete the extras. Sorry about that.

I certainly agree. All 5 times.

Hi again.

If you do decide to update your OS, I'd recommend waiting for Windows 8.1 which will be out soon, or going to Windows 7.

Windows 8 can be kind of a pain to get used to, but it is faster then W7.

I've been using Windows 8 for a couple of years now, and there are still things that I don't like, some of which will be fixed in 8.1.

I've hacked 8 so much that it looks just like a cross between XP and 7 on my computer.

I use an aftermarket search engine and software that changes the interface to look like Windows XP, but it does have a performance advantage over 7 so I guess it's worth it.

Soon you won't be able to get anything else anyway.

You may have trouble finding a copy of Windows 7 now, that isn't at an inflated price.

I bought several copies at $39 now I wish I hadn't given them away.

What ever you do be sure to get the 64 bit version.

Nothing like having 32 gigs of ran to take the stress off your computer.

Mike

Quote - Hi again.

If you do decide to update your OS, I'd recommend waiting for Windows 8.1 which will be out soon, or going to Windows 7.

Windows 8 can be kind of a pain to get used to, but it is faster then W7.

I've been using Windows 8 for a couple of years now, and there are still things that I don't like, some of which will be fixed in 8.1.

I've hacked 8 so much that it looks just like a cross between XP and 7 on my computer.

I use an aftermarket search engine and software that changes the interface to look like Windows XP, but it does have a performance advantage over 7 so I guess it's worth it.

Soon you won't be able to get anything else anyway.

You may have trouble finding a copy of Windows 7 now, that isn't at an inflated price.

I bought several copies at $39 now I wish I hadn't given them away.

What ever you do be sure to get the 64 bit version.

Nothing like having 32 gigs of ran to take the stress off your computer.

Mike

I'm getting server errors for every submission, but the post goes through anyway. Let's hope this one doesn't duplicate too many times.

I'm struggling with Windows 8 right now. OMG. I have never sworn so much at a machine. All I was trying to do was set up a KVM with a dual monitor serving 2 computers and it took most of the night.

Little things I am still having trouble getting used to include there being no edit>select all in the folder options, and the default use of icons, rather than text, as headings (which I hate because my brain parses text much faster), along with some "aps" not being removable via control panel; and the requirement that I sign up for a windows live account before I can even boot my machine.  Having to input a password at every boot eliminates the speed gains right there.

But I'm suffering through it because eventually I'll have to know how to navigate through it, I suppose, though it seems businesses are still mostly using XP, so we'll be at win 14 before I actually NEED to know how to use win 8.

I all ways thought it's best to be up to date with software.
windows 8 made me re think that thought.but I'm still using windows 8.
I'll suffer threw them all windows 10,12,etc etc.

outlook.com don't save emails to ya hard drive unless ya join other stuff.

some days I miss 3 channels n party lines.

Quote - > Quote - I'm pretty sure you don't need a 4096x4096 pixel head texture for a 1200 pixel render, for example, even if it is a close-up. The texture resolution doesn't need to exceed the size as it will appear in the render.

Just remember  the texture is covering a 3D object. Let's say you carefully calculate that the character's head you are going to render, which is the focus of the scene, will only be 1500 pixels wide in the render. The image is a sort of 3/4 profile standard "looking off into the distance" portrait shot. How wide does your texture have to be, at minimum, before it starts looking bad?

More than 1500 pixels wide. If you're just resizing the texture, note that the 1500 pixels you're seeing on the screen isn't the entire texture, it's part of the texture, the part covering that section of the 3D object that's visible to the camera. Consider Victoria 3, or other characters where a single map covers the entire head: the texture wraps completely around the head, including the parts that aren't visible in the camera. If you reduced the texture size to 1500 pixels wide, you aren't getting a 1:1 correspondance between texture size and what's in the render, and you'll start seeing artefacts.

That's what I had suspected too but I wasn't sure. Thank you for the confirmation. Of course, there's no need for a high resolution texture for characters in the background. I usually use reduced resolution.

With a 64 bit system and lots of memory, Poser Pro 2014 64 bit can handle a boatload of characters. Maybe Poser Pro 2012 64 bit can too. I haven't checked. (I render in Vue because outdoor renders in Firefly are less than optimized.)

FWIT, here is a short demo (20 secs) where I used 45 Figures in the same scene (and 45 separate Walk Paths).

Whilst Scripting simplified the task of loading all the Figures (and in creating all the Walk Paths), the Poser app still ran, although noticely slowly!

I7 CPU, 64bit PoserPro2012, 16Gb RAM.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBy5YIlE9A

Also take into consideration other aspects of your scene such as cameras and lights.  By default, they are checked as visible and are very much included in the render process although you don't physically see them according to the manual.  Systematically shut those down before render.  Again, any object/element switched to invisible will not be under render consideration.  

For distant models/props try using Normal Maps for details; this process is used successfully for lores backgrounds in games without significantly increasing the memory overhead.

Hi

For those suffering with Windows 8...

Install Classic Shell, it gives you the options to boot to the desktop, clasic start menus, either XP, or Windows 7, and fixes a lot of the things that seem to be missing in W8.

I've used it since I started beta testing W8 off and on, and I used it with Windows 7 before that, when I got my new computer I installed it and never looked back.

http://www.classicshell.net/

Windows 8.1 will restore some of the features like booting directly to the desktop but not the classic start menus.

I do like the stability and speed of Windows 8 but I spent hours setting up the start menu and never use it.

I have used Rocket Dock for years, ever since Windows 7 came out.

I put all my normally used programs on it and seldom have to open any start menu list.

http://rocketdock.com/

Here's my desktop.

Everything I use all in one place organized by category, games on the right, then Windows tools, graphic arts and video, ending with links to my control panel and computer.

Things that I want accessible when I have a program open, like Skype, my browser, Word, mail, Windows Explorer and the snipping tool go on the task bar.

I've had it just like this since Windows 7 so I don't even have to think about where things are anymore.

I also recommend Agent Ransack a separate search engine that really works and is very easy to use.

http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/

All of these programs are free!

Now I can almost forget that I'm using Windows 8. LOL

Mike

Quote - Also take into consideration other aspects of your scene such as cameras and lights.  By default, they are checked as visible and are very much included in the render process although you don't physically see them according to the manual.  Systematically shut those down before render.  Again, any object/element switched to invisible will not be under render consideration.  

For distant models/props try using Normal Maps for details; this process is used successfully for lores backgrounds in games without significantly increasing the memory overhead.

I've just tried what you said. I don't know what version of Poser you are running, but on PoserPro 2012 it doesn't seem to be possible to make lights invisible. When you uncheck the box "visible", it automatically commes back to visible. As for the cameras, they are invisible by default.

Yep, checked that myself and indeed they do default to embedded coding.  My bad.

Thank you everybody for your help. I've had all the answers I expected, and even more.