> Gilles Tran wrote:
> >
> > What seems strange to me is that the memory use is lower when only a part of
> > the picture is rendered.
> >
>         That' not too surprising: there are less radiosity samples to store,
> therefore it uses less memory.

Does it mean that a good strategy when rendering a large radiosity image likely to
cause "out of memory" problems is to render it in a batch ?
+ER300 +C
+ER600 +C
+ER900 +C
etc.

Each successive partial render picks up the image where the previous one left it
(solution not tested ?).

G.

Post a reply to this message