Doug & Allan, some time ago you gave me advice on a problem I was having with basic rendering crashing the program, possible causes and video card fixes. The problem was never resolved. Recently I updated the video card to a Nvidia Geforce 8400 GS and basic rendering has advanced to the image attached without the program crashing. Not good but a start. Advance rendering is fine. Any clues on how to advance further with basic rendering. Maybe a new PC might be the answer.
Regards Bob
Hi Bob,
If I understand correctly, it did not crash but just finished as it is with the bottom half black.
What was in the model that you rendered in this example? Was there a building or just the Terrain?
If just the Terrain then some too obvious questions:
Was Daylight turned on? (the Background will always render even if Daylight is off)
If it was on, was it set to use Current Time - and you were doing it at night?
By asking such basic questions I am not implying that you do not know what you are doing but it is easy in a rush to try something new to overlook such obvious things. I have done it myself a few times! ::)
Even though you have a new video card, did you also install the LATEST driver? Sometimes they do not ship with the latest one supplied.
Have you tried it since the new VC with Hardware Acceleration off?
Have you also tried it with the hardware acceleration on the VC driver itself turned down a notch? You can usually access the VC Control Panel by right clicking the desktop.
What are the other PC specs? They may help someone like Pat to diagnose any other possible issues if none of the above helps.
Allan
Hello Allan, tried ever thing you suggested with hardware acceleration, no difference. There was a model in the rendered example and the daylight setting was turned on, current time was off and time set to daytime. Latest driver installed. As the computer is some 5 years old it must be the problem.
Just a further question, do you know if Pro 16 will work on a machine running windows 7 or the new 8
I agree with Allan's info.
Also suggest you go here:
http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/
http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/download.php
and download and run OpenGL Extensions Viewer for your PC.
It will list and test your vid card config and capabilities and could help identify anything odd as well as link you to driver version updates etc.
A very handy tool to have, and it is free.
The only unknown is what TFP expects from vid card spec; TFP requirements list is very sparse on details for vid card....unlike, for example, Photoshop, which lists details and tested/approved cards.
Doug.S
Quote from: Burgo on November 23, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
snip... Latest driver installed. As the computer is some 5 years old it must be the problem.
Just a further question, do you know if Pro 16 will work on a machine running windows 7 or the new 8
I ran TFP for many years on WinXP (up to 6 years ago, 512MB vid card, 2GB RAM) and now on Win7 for a year and it runs just fine. Even my old and new laptop ran TFP OK; it does not tax resources too much for small scenes and good files.
I don't know about win8; I'm waiting a year for bugs to be resolved for many many programs; usually drivers are last to work right. Never expect an old program to run on a newer OS unless program seller says so in its req. specs. Even then, on new stuff, expect possible problems tho Microsoft does try to support older apps and does test a lot. NOTHING tests a system like the users tho.
Suggest you try running a simple .bld file with nothing added; just the terrain as it opens as a starter file and see if that renders with HW accel off as off uses little or none of vid card for render to file. If "basic" does not render it may be a bad TFP install? Any other signs of TFP errors?
Did you wait long enough? maybe was out of RAM and using HD which would be very slow.
Another thing to watch is system: have perf-monitor console running or task manager and watch the RAM, CPU, and disk usage to see if your PC stalls or exceeds capabilities..Have all other programs turned off...what are your PC specs? do they meet TFP min. specs required?
Doug, many thanks for your help. The PC specifications are attached. Before I proceed any further you might advise me if the specs meet the minimum requirements of TP 16 pro.
Thanks Bob
Your PC system looks competent enough
see TFP req list here:
http://www.imsidesign.com/Portals/4/sales/turbofloorplan-3d/a/turbofloorplan-3d-home-and-landscape-pro-system-requirements.html
except your PC has only 1GB RAm which is bare min. even for win xp (despite TFP and win xp specs of 512KB). Usually that means for renders it may use HDD as alt for RAM and renders very slowly; but you can verify RAM use when a render is underway using performance monitor in win xp.
When you exported your PC specs you had 200 mb RAM available; not a lot of room for more work; but I don't know what else you were running.
So run perf-mon: (or anything similar; perf-mon is a part of windows)
I don't remember exactly how to run in win xp but for win7 it is found here:
perf-mon Console.msc or perfmon.exe
You can do a search at C:/ or windows/ to find in your system
or google for how to start/run it
or try 'run' and insert perfmon.exe, OK, click on performance monitor; right click in window to add other things to monitor
Shows a graph of PC resources vs. time so you can watch ram use as a program runs. and HDD and CPU etc.
Your PC should run TFP OK, if a large render (try trial of small size such as 640x480) it may run slow; watch for disk use and just wait unless you get a program error.
Also try adv render at q=1 just to see if it runs the most simple sunlit exterior terrain.
Hi Doug, thanks for your detailed reply. Sorry to be a nuisance, but what am I looking for when viewing the graph. I am not a computer expert and need a bit of a hand with this one.
The attached image took approx 8.5 minutes to render, Q =3 1024x768 size. Basic render crashed the program.
If the ram was doubled to 2 meg, do you think this would make a difference. Could easily do as ram is cheap these days.
Regards Bob
When looking at the perf-mon graph you want to watch 3 things; (you probably have to add them to the graph from the list of choices)...see attached screen grab from my laptop I'm using as I write this with only Outlook and IE running. I also hae Internet activity listed for me to see that activity some times. I have 6GB RAM, 4GB available yet to use. CPU and HDD almost not in use at all.
CPU: it will probably run at 100% capacity most of the time when rendering, but not always; for some reason TFP sometimes just does not use CPU to its full benefit.....so good to know what is happening. And before and after TFP renders, CPU should be running very low like 5%...if over 10% you are getting interference from other programs.
HDD: total hard disk usage, should be very low when TFP is rendering; should only go in a few spikes to maybe 100% when render is done and TFP saving result to disk; short few seconds of load. If HDD runs high like over 80% when rendering is in process then you have too little RAM.
RAM use; if it ever reaches 100% or 1GB (your total RAM), then you need more RAM. If it always stays below full use then adding more RAM won't help much except give you ability to run more programs at same time. Look at it when nothing is running except OS/Win XP just after start and see how much RAM is available. Then start TFP with a .bld file open and see how much of total 1GB is being used without rendering; then look when rendering....if it ever max.'s out the actual physical 1GB RAM, then install more. 3GB is max. XP can see/use and then only if special large memory aware app is installed and it has some problems; best to simply stay at 2GB max.
Always odd if basic crashes and adv. does not (did you also auto run basic after adv? that is default and only way to get reflections)...no explanation and maybe Allan has some tips??? 8.5 min seems about right for your PC.
No need to add RAM unless RAM use explained above shows need.....but regardless I would recommend you have 2GB with XP just for general use and multiple apps; windows itself will take best advantage of RAM and it is cheap these days and easy to install.
Hi Bob,
It seems odd that you can do Advanced rendering (which contains Raytrace) and not Basic (which is Raytrace).
Are you sure the program you are running has the latest 'patch' / update?
http://www.imsidesign.com/Support/Overview/TurboFLOORPLANSupport/TurboFloorPlanUpdates/tabid/2292/Default.aspx (http://www.imsidesign.com/Support/Overview/TurboFLOORPLANSupport/TurboFloorPlanUpdates/tabid/2292/Default.aspx)
Which version of TFPlan are you running ?
Jack
Doug, again thankyou for the reply, I will digest and post the results when time permits.
Jack, bit of a mystery this one with advance rendering working ok and basic crashing or only part rendering. I am using TC pro Version 16
Hi there,
No mistery here, I think that is clear where the problem is
The rendering process has two stages--> In the first stage, your computer prepares the image (cataloguing surfaces, textures, compiling the data, etc), in other words in this first stage, the processor + the RAM memory are in charge, making calculations. The second part is the rendering stage--> with the info developed and collected from the first image, the image is drawn in the screen, using CPU / vc, video CPU cycles and video card memory
The basic rendering is "muscle based" so it uses more raster resources, therefore your videocard must work in full force
The advanced rendering is more "inteligence based" so it uses more vector resources, therefore if you have a set (motherboard, chip, motherboard, memory), you will render without problems
For the above reasons, I don't recommend to focus only on the Video Card: the key is a computer ready for serious rendering. This means a good processor / chip + RAM memory + video card
These specs are based on my personal experience, and of course, other specs may work or not.
I'd choose a processor with (at least) 2.8 GHz (3.0 or up if you can), RAM at least 4 GB (8 GB if you can), and video card with dedicated memory with at least 512 Mb (1 GB to 2 GB if you can)
Some additional tips
- choose a computer / video card with a good cooling system. This is not a small detail: one a my computers has a video card with double deck cooling system and this helps a lot with heavy rendering. Example: my old Dell computer came with a great processor, a great video card but a very small fan. For this reason, after a couple of hours doing rendering, the system becomes very slow
- Keep in mind that, in order to handle a memory with more than 4 GB, you will need a Windows operative system with 64 bits.
Also, in your computer specs, I didn't see some very important info --> Do you heve DirectX installed? What version?
Hope this helps!
Pat
Hi Pat,
I do agree with your statements but my lack of understanding of some things about computers still has me wondering why Raytrace isn't working. I do think the first place to go is to add more Ram.
You have a typo , stating 4mb + requires 64 bit....
------------------------------------------------
I do hate to get off topic a bit but maybe you can help me understand things about computers a bit Pat.
I recently picked up a Samsung Slate 7, specs similar to this link but with 64 gb hard drive. It does have 4GB Ram. (no I didn't pay full price :-)
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE700T1A-A04US-11-6-Inch-2467M-Bluetooth/dp/B007EIHUWC/ref=sr_1_fed0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353874161&sr=8-2&keywords=samsung+series+7+slate (http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE700T1A-A04US-11-6-Inch-2467M-Bluetooth/dp/B007EIHUWC/ref=sr_1_fed0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353874161&sr=8-2&keywords=samsung+series+7+slate)
How come (running Windows Eight), this thing 'flys' with TFPlan installed ? It is faster than my 3.5 yr old 3.2 ghz local built computer with 8 gb Ram, 10,000 rpm Solid State main drive.
I expected to be able to only use it for basic onsite building layouts (as done in remodeling job). Then transfer the bld to my main computer. So far I've been able to draw anything I want. Do 'simple' Basic rendering in less than 2 min and more detailed Advanced in less than 3 min at 1024 x resolution quailty 5.
I was told it would perform similar to a 5 to 8 year old laptop by some, and I do have such machines and they are no way near the speed and quality of the Samsung.
I am just thrilled !! The Intel i5 processor is doing a great job! Windows 8 is great !..... I can do a HDMI hook up to large screens for presentation and when I get a 'hot spot' connect to Sky Drive to store and recover my work.
So, why isn't this little 1.6 ghz acting like a 6 year old laptop ???
I promise to only check your reply on my main computer, I don't want the Samsung Slate to get an inferiority complex and 'slow down' :-)
thanks for any thoughts you may have.
Jack
Pat, thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I don't appear to have direct X installed. What is direct X? and the significance in this matter. Can it be downloaded from the net.
Regards Bob
Quote from: Jack Zimmer on November 25, 2012, 03:16:50 PM
snip..How come (running Windows Eight), this thing 'flys' with TFPlan installed ? It is faster than my 3.5 yr old 3.2 ghz local built computer with 8 gb Ram, 10,000 rpm Solid State main drive.
snip
So, why isn't this little 1.6 ghz acting like a 6 year old laptop ???
snip
Win8 is faster for some operations, SSHD is much faster (maybe 30x) than 10K rpm old magnetic HD, 1.7GHz can run at higher speed in turbo mode, graphics card is not particularly fast or separate (unless you added a discrete card) but does little except to run display, .bld is probably not large and not taxing the RAM so it has little impact....and new PCs always run way faster until you load on extra stuff; it has little running in background compared to an old PC.
I suspect if you watch the TFP use of CPU it does not fully load the CPU anyway so a faster one is not that much more for thruput.
You would need to run both side by side, nothing else running, same exact program and .bld file (disconnect from www), turn off AV unless it is exactly the same, etc.;
THEN compare run times using a large .bld file and adv. at q=5
Let us know the results; maybe share file and we others can run and compare times for render....but there are so many variables it is hard to compare apples to apples for CPU and RAM only differences...even the mobo has an effect.
(I used to design computers for military aircraft, missiles, and satellite h/w...long ago, but they did not have graphics cards; and today some programs such as games and Photoshop rely on GPU abilities to speed up stuff).
Quote from: Burgo on November 25, 2012, 03:17:23 PM
Pat, thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I don't appear to have direct X installed. What is direct X? and the significance in this matter. Can it be downloaded from the net.
Regards Bob
Hi Bob,
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35
Pat
Direct X helps graphic display in windows
go to "run" (windows key, run...) and type in: dxdiag
the hit OK and it will check it in your system
(dxdiag = direct x diagnostics)
Hi Bob,
Ihave largely kept out of this duscussion as I am no expert with computers and their ideosyncracies!
As far as your computer is concerned and if you cannot really justify getting a new one, then I would not worry about Basic rendering. The inage you posted earier is fine. Basic rendering would not do it any better, probably worse in fact. Interestingly Envisioneer 8 was released with Basic render removed, although a patch has since restored it my public demand. I have however continued to use Advanced for exterior views but doing as was suggested - use only Quality 1.
You could do the same thing, which would reduce render time a little. On exterior views the higher quality render setting are no advantage really, as they are intended for the light shadow graduations of interior lighting. As you know, our Australian sun produces very harsh shadows(!) which is what Basic render (raytrace component of Advanced render) does, so this overrides the delicate shading anyway.
The other thing I would do if I was you, is render with a much smaller image. I never use bigger than 640x480 until I have the lighting etc right. Only for the final image do I set it to a high resolution. Saves a lot of time! Using Quality 1 Advanced is only marginally longer than Basic and is fine for exterior views. Of course, if a new PC is viable (and you can justify it to your wife ;) ) then go for it!
Jack,
I have a Samsung Core i7, 32 bit, with 4 gb RAM (not solid state) and it flies too, especislly compared with my previous Asus which was not very old (was stollen)!
Allan
Hi Jack,
Typo corrected ! ;)
you don't inform the type / brand of the old processor, but IMO the difference must be the (probably) in the processor --> the i5 works nice and in my experience, even if TFP is not a 64 bit program, the speed is better
Anyway, for the old computer, make a good maintenace, including malware (avoid Lavasoft) . I fixed the speed of several computers just cleaning the system.
Hope this helps
Pat
This has certainly been an interesting topic and I have learn t a lot from the experts.
I will add more ramp to see if this fixes the basic render problem, if not I will stick to Allan's advice and use only advance render on a lower quality.
Thankyou to every one who contributed to this discussion.
Doug, it now appears that Active X is installed on my machine.
Regards Bob
Quote from: Burgo on November 25, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
Doug, it now appears that Active X is installed on my machine.
Regards Bob
Active X is far different than Direct X; I hope you meant Direct X, tho you probably have both.
Sorry, director X
Downloaded and installed the latest version of Director X, Installed a further 3 gig of ram. Results, will now basic render small files but still crashes with larger files. Solution, stick to advance render.
just on an off chance, I'd suggest you re-install TFP...just in case there is some small file broken; but possible that is not the issue at all. Grasping for answers now and can only try to fix one thing at a time.
Still very odd basic broke but adv works OK. I had a file once that would hang or take forever for basic but adv was OK....so it is likely a file problem? or do all .bld files work that way and it seems to be a system problem for you?
Suggest you post a tested problem .bld file and a few here can run and post tested results to see if it is only your PC or if problem goes with a file?
Thanks Doug, will consider reinstalling TFP. Attached is the file that crashes in basic render.
Hi Bob,
the file works fine in my computer
Image 1 is basic rendering --> rendering time 4 seconds
Image 2 is advanced --> rendering time 96 seconds
I didn't modify lighting or other settings
I am under the impression that something is not working OK with your computer's motherboard. (chip + memory)
Pat
Thanks Pat, it very much looks like it is my computer or software. What processor, chip and how much ram does your computer have.
Bob
I ran both basic and adv and renders were fine.
Did on my laptop, win7, i7 CPU 1.6GHz turbo to 2.4, 6GB ram, radeon 5730 1GB vid card
view was different than Pat but similar (just opened file and rendered to .bmp at whatever settings you had in the .bld file)
Basic took a few seconds; probably less than 5
Adv render took 120 seconds total (112+8)
Hi Bob,
Yes, it looks like a hardware problem.
My computer --> Win 7 64 bit / i5 processor 3.2 GHz / Ram 8GB / videocard AMD Radeon HD 6900 2GB
Pat
Yes, it does look like a hardware problem and thankyou all for your help, very much appreciated.
Bob
Just for grins I also rendered exact same file, same way, on my desktop (a year old) which is an i7 3.4 GHz, 12GB RAM, radeon 6870 1MB vid card
basic render = 6 sec
adv render = 60 + 6 = 66 sec total