Photoworks
Devin
This is a BS error. I can give it all the virtual memory it want and it
still does it.
I just started getting this when I loaded 2001.
The last time I had this problem is when I first bought 99 and I had to
update my video driver.
I have updated everything I possibly could and I can not get rid of this
error.
If I zoom way out, I can render it, but when I zoom in and try screen res or
higher get the error.
Yes it is only a 16 meg ATI card, but I haven't read anything about 2001
requiring me to upgrade my video card. It's not even a complicated ass.
(Only 2 parts).
This card has worked great for me for a year and a half.
Darryl Jenkins
How many lights do you have set....
What is the last thing stated on the rendering status bar?
I had a similar problem some time back which seemed linked to a particular
light, I replaced it and all seemed OK.
btw I had 5 or six addition spotlights set up.
Try suppressing the various lights before deleting.
--
Darryl Jenkins
Symplistic Engineering
Perth, Western Australia
Devin <dev...@cts.com> wrote in message news:97vn0h$12sn$1...@thoth.cts.com...
Devin
enabled.
I have this same scene in other assemblies but I don't get this error with
them.
I will try a couple of your sugestions, Thanks.
"Darryl Jenkins" <dar...@langray.com> wrote in message
news:nJWo6.1$P55....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
Paul Salvador
I've been testing PW for the past 4 days and I found that adding a bump
map can send my PIII 933 with 512megs to 1 gig of virtual in a few
minutes and it keeps wanting more memory,.. I just kill SW. It's
ridiculous.
No one mentioned this in the thread about PW except a few that wrote to
me personally about management of textures and lighting being poor, not
on this ng, and it's very disappointing. PW is a memory hog and I'm
only working on simple single parts!
I don't know guys, it's nice having it integrated but the limits in how
you setup a scene and manage textures and lights and since it's a memory
hog, it's barely worth what they are asking $. Now I understand why
they are offering PW and the others at a low price! Animator is another
memory hog and so is FeatureWorks(I would NEVER use this tool)!
Well, you guys have a big hill to climb with getting performance
increases because the demo I'm running is not impressive. BTW, I've
cleaned out every sign(registry edit) of SW products and have done a
clean install and still PW and the other add-ins are sucking memory big
time!!. This is especially evident while editing the texture files.
Like most of the tools you guys have they have potential but are not
robust enuf.
Now I understand why I saw generic looking images, because the controls
in tweaking a scene, textures and lighting is limited.
..
Devin
assembly I create.
My job and life depends on me being able to turn around a photo quality
rendering nearly daily. Sometime 2-3 times a day.
I love photoworks and think it ran great up until 2001. Not to mention how
slow the rest of SolidWorks got.
I sure hope the next release fixes these problems.
For now I have upgraded ram and video and still didn't make a difference.
Maybe they could get rid of all these silly Check Marks and X's everywhere
and concentrate on performance.
Or maybe they could come up with some real system requirements and not try
to tell us that it will work fine on any machine.
I already can't load 2001 on my home machine cuz I have an AMD and win98!
Geezz, and my VAR said the AMD patch would make everything OK.
"Paul Salvador" <za...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AA485BA...@gte.net...
Paul Salvador
I had a PW thread going on render quality.
I know what POP's are, point of purchase displays but I have not seen
your post before or seen any example of your work. Could you send me
what you think is render quality or real looking or post a link to a
site you have that shows your work?
Most of the quality of the work I've seen is very generic, textures,
lighting and not real looking.
What other render tools have you used?
Here is my site with some renderings I've done using LightWave and since
I've been demoing PW recently, here is one image I recently created.
http://home1.gte.net/zaxys/gallery.htm
http://home1.gte.net/zaxys/55678c2.jpg
I'm sure once I understand the tweaks more I can be more creative in
getting better and real looking results.
At this point though I find PW, SW2K demo not SW2K1), to be fairly
limited or I'm really missing it's simplicity and flexibility?
Question, how do you make a totally unique *.lwi, *.pwx, *.pwa or use
existing images, png, tga, tif,... into a *.lwi and/or incorporate
different images.(please do not say use a decal).
Thanks,..
Jerry Steiger
Big Snip
> I already can't load 2001 on my home machine cuz I have an AMD and win98!
> Geezz, and my VAR said the AMD patch would make everything OK.
Devin,
Did you try loading it at home? I know of at least one person who has a K7
running SW2001 on Win 98 without any problems, even though SW seems to say
it can't be done. My K7 runs SW2000 just fine on Win 98, although they said
that wouldn't work either. If you needed the patch, then you must have a K6.
Maybe it won't run, but you won't know till you try.
Jerry Steiger
Kevin Silbert
Lightwave ~$1500.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you were expecting Photoworks to have
more power than Lightwave....?
As for performance/memory usage, there are lots of suggestions that can be
made:
-Set up renderings in a non-maximized window (I'm guessing you have your
screen res cranked up to 1600x1200 or even higher?)
-Turn off some lights when setting up renderings
-Render "to window" in an area you are looking at rather than the entire
assembly when trying to figure out if the bump mapping looks good.
-Turn off antialiasing and other goodies until you've got everything set the
way you want.
I've taught many people how to use Photoworks to get what they need. But
these people are product designers who want to show their product in a good
light, rather than programmers or computer graphics artist who can dedicate
a lot of time and money to learning how to make it look like a scene from
"Titanic" or "Terminator"
PhotoWorks is a tool that meets the needs of maybe 90% of people using
SolidWorks... those whose full-time job it is to design products, and "oh-by
the way- can you print something out for our literature?" If it doesn't
meet your needs; congratulations- I would have to consider you a very
demanding professional with advanced graphics arts needs. There are lots of
high-end tools out there. But are your customers really willing to pay you
3 times the money for a picture that looks a slight bit more realistic?
Again- if so- congratulations!
Anyway, I'm getting off the soapbox now- sorry 'bout that... ;)
-Kevin
"Paul Salvador" <za...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AA485BA...@gte.net...
Paul Salvador
NO. Your making this a cost issue and it is NOT.
LightWave has a lite version called "Inspire" which does "everything" I
typically do and it cost about $400USD retail and LightWave goes for
~2,300USD retail but you can get Inspire for as low as $250USD and the
full LightWave for as low as $1300USD, there are NO restrictions on
transfering/reselling NewTek products.
(I bought LightWave about 5 years ago, Inspire was made available about
2.5 years ago.)
So, yes, in a way I do expect PW to be better than the cheaper
Inspire(lightwave lite). I never really made this a LightWave against
PW issue, cost or otherwise, but I did use LightWave as a reference to
what I believe looks real looking and what I'm familiar with. Does that
clear things up for you? Personally, I would luv to have the option to
utilize Inspire(lightwave lite) as a SW plugin and/or have the choice of
any render engine on the market as a SW plugin.
Does PW meet my needs,....I don't know, that's why I started asking
questions here.
I've only been trialing PW recently and it's not bad and it is fast but
it needs more control or freedom in how you setup textures and scenes
and it has some problems with edge faceting(the mesher seems to have
some issues), and no support or link to your favorite paint program,
i.e., to edit you image maps(s).
And of course, I do NOT render at high res., just like LightWave or any
graphics package, you do small test renders before your finals, always.
PW area capture is fine but what it should have is a small preview or
test render window of the whole scene, that is, if you can specifically
output 320X240, why not have a preview image at that res instead of
writing to a file?? And yes, using a quad reduced window fine and I'm
doing that as well but it would be much better to have a small preview
window pop up.
What is disappointing with my customers is they are typically only
interested in getting parts. But understanding the release cycles or
timelines of a design phase(s) parts take time to manufacture so
releasing "real looking images" is a move towards understanding final
looking product and planning ahead with assembly concerns, color/texture
studies, presentation planning or even virtual marketing,... it all
helps with preparation.
By getting the idea on print 1-2 months or more ahead of delivery,
especially if the product is in need of more capital investment, you're
ahead of the game if need be. So, yes, there are degrees to the realism
for the different needs of marketing and production.
I've only run into a few clients which truly grasp this and understand
it's importance and worth, others are willing to stay the path of
conservative - that's not how we do it and we are going to keep doing it
the old way.
What I have charged in the past is easily 1/3($100-400/print) of the
cost of what graphic designers charge. But their marketing departments
will first go to the graphics artist or wait for the final product and a
photographer because that is the way they "normally" do it and they are
willing to pay according to "their" scales.
AND, the only images that ever look real are from photographs of the
final product, the art images are nearly always NOT real looking or they
have a fantasy/cartoon look and they do NOT capture the final product
look.
My clients know what is real looking and I prefer to work with clients
who know the difference.
But you are right, most people don't care to appreciate what's pleasing
to the eye or what is show and what is fake. There are many
conservative minded people in this industry that will not allow progress
to happen unless they are pushed.
I do not agree with your assessment of product designers or industrial
designers because basically they are very similar to 3D/2D film artist.
They use similar tools, if not, the same tools. I've been to quite a
few design houses that use LightWave. The most common design tool is
Alias/Wavefront or Alias/Studio and the link to film is Maya, Softimage,
LightWave, Houdini,.. and alot of custom in house software. The
annoying part of this is even Alias users make images that are NOT real
looking because, they are taught or mimic what industrial design images
should look like.
Personally, I enjoy making the images and I don't care if the client is
wanting to pay or not, I think it is their foolish loss not
understanding the importance of virtual planning and marketing.
I do not understand this comment?
"oh-by the way- can you print something out for our literature?"
When a marketing person request a print before they go to a BS meeting?
Yeah, that seems real.
I have no idea what soap box you are on but you made this a cost issue
(which it was not) and if I was comparing to LightWave(full version,
which I was not) or if PW meets my needs(I don't know yet).
It is for me, however, a loss to those that do not utilize virtual
planning and marketing.
I think I'm no different than most designers, I think because I've been
independent for many years and buying software/hardware for many years
lends me to question why aren't we seeing tools progress fast enough
with better quality? I believe I have answered this indirectly, or our
industry is filled with a majority of conservative minded individuals
with leading positions which stifle progress.
..
Kevin Silbert
I have no problem with wanting to have improvements. No software is ever
perfect; there is always room for improvement. That is certainly a noble
goal; I wish you luck. I have been around SW and PW for a few years now,
and have already seen lots of improvements in both, and I know both
companies would never settle for what they have. I'm sure they need this
type of feedback.
On the other hand, from the tone of your previous postings, I was gathering
that you thought it was inconceivable that anyone would ever use PW for
anything. This is what I was disagreeing with, as it suits the needs of 80%
(trying to be conservative!) of designers using SolidWorks. Since you have
even admitted that you are quite discriminating in your needs, and
acknowledge that probably the rest of the world might not be, I suppose that
it all makes sense now. As for the statement you said you did not
understand, I was trying to explain that I think most of the users I have
seen are engineers first and their artistic skills are not even on the chart
(OUCH! hope I don't get flamed for THAT... :)
As for other systems that could plug in to SW for rendering, I'm sure you
know that the API is very accessible; you probably have even seen how Joe
Jones has gotten POVRay to work with SolidWorks at
http://www.nhcad.com/html/download.asp as freeware. Maybe you should talk
to NewTek? SolidWorks has a great partner program... a little competition
is good for everybody!
Anyway, thanks for clarifying about the costs. I stand corrected.
-Kevin
"Paul Salvador" <za...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AA94E71...@gte.net...
Mark Robirds
In my office is a poster that measures 48 x 36 inches at 300dpi
that I rendered for our trade show booth. It was rendered at 10,000
x 9600 pixels. The seen contains 5 assemblies of over 100 parts each
including decals and bumpmaps. I used 7 spot lights(all you can) with
full ray tracing and anti-aliasing. This was done at the time on a PIII 550
w/256megs
of RAM and even though it took some time and created a 270 meg jpeg file, I
had
no memory issues and did other tasks while PW was rendering. May be some
other issues with your machine to consider.
In the two years since I have upgraded to a dual 933 512meg machine and
even
though SW doesn't use the extra chip, PW sure does! Two seperate bars render
at the same time cutting render times in half. Whaen SW can do that with
rebuild I'll be in heaven.
"Kevin Silbert" <kwsi...@home.com.NOSPAMMAGE> wrote in message
news:68hq6.166462$B6.36...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Paul Salvador
One problem was editing my own material files, especially with bump maps
and decals. It seems there is a big hit with making changes with the
bump map variables and decals, "depending on the image files".
If you are using the standard materials, I agree, this is of little
consequence.
When you are editing your own materials using your own images and maps,
the material manager starts gobbling up memory.
I'm new to this so I was probably doing something that most of you
seasoned PW users know you do not do with the material manager.
Once I did get the material file saved, the rendering escalated to my
swap space within minutes and I killed the app in taskmanager.
I do not work on large assemblies but I do work on parts with shape.
So now I'm curious, can I/we see your pic of the assembly you printed,
in a smaller internet format of course. 8)
..
Paul Salvador
BTW, seriously, what is the maximum payload for that cart??
..
Mark Robirds wrote:
>
> Here it is
>
> Name: Multicart.jpg
> Multicart.jpg Type: Paint Shop Pro 5 Image (application/x-unknown-content-type-PSP5.Image)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
Mark Robirds
accessories
loaded on one. Any more than that and I think the golfer would wish he was
doing
something else :) Then again most of them seem to be pretty foolish.
p.s. just to strut a little.... that little design got me in the Sept. 2000
Popular Mechanics
issue. pg. 54
"Paul Salvador" <za...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AB6A4E2...@gte.net...