Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Andycadd <And### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> >> not so Strange that it works just fine with 3.6 but not 3.7 as 3.7 probably
> >> uses a little more memory overhead
> >
> >   No, there's nothing in 3.7 which should use more memory than 3.6. It is
> > not normal. If you can come up with a good example scene, it would be very
> > helpful.
>
> You are mistaken, it is normal. The image output was changed, which does
> matter if you have a 8K x 2K pixel image - that image will consume 320M
> bytes of memory right now, as disk buffering has not been implemented yet.
>
>  Thorsten

Disk buffering  .....  that is working in 3.6 currently?
How come the windows virtual memory doesn't just pick this up?
PLEASE excuse my ignorance.

Post a reply to this message