Out of memory

Burkhard · 19 Mar 2009, 11:39

First time that I get a model with over 100MB. I try to clean it, but when copying the message " out of memory " appears. Is there a solution?

Pixero · 19 Mar 2009, 13:10

First thing that comes to mind is that you could try to split the model in parts and then clean each part and finally reassemble the whole thing.

designforgood · 15 Apr 2009, 22:57

How big is too big for a model? I am modelling an office that I did and so far I have doors, windows, workstations and files. I am thinking about puttin in more details.

My system is Sketchup 6 Pro, Windows XP SP2, 3 Gig Ram @ 1.66 ghz.

I guess that brings me to my second question. What is the ideal system setup for sketchup?

sambort · 16 Apr 2009, 04:55

How somebody can arrive to 100 mb file?, Could you say us how many edge and faces have your model? How large are the material image you use?

To be franc, i don´t undestand thats trees or other component greater than 1 mb, 10000 faces of google warehouse and thats materials of 2 mb .jpgs. who could use its?

To me, simple i can´t modeler nothing greater than 1 milion faces, 10 mb file. So if i do a very detailed house of 1 mb, i need to be very carefull with the interior or exterior scences. How can i add one or two cars when its have 3 mb each, how to add 20 trees of 1 mb, how to add the kitchinet details when its cames in 2-5 mb files for a cab. imposible.

So to me, my best exterior scenes have no more than 30 trees, each one of 2000 faces, less than 50 kb file each, and similar for the interior scenes of a house: very very small components in the way that the whole file is less than 10 mb 1 million face limit.

could anybody tell us yours experiences?

Jean Lemire · 16 Apr 2009, 13:21

Hi Burkhard, hi folks.

Try purging first. I once did a purge on a 105 Megs model received from someone and it came out at 65 Megs after a purge. After looking at a few parts in this model, I figured out that by simplifying the geometry, the model could be brough back to about 25-30 Megs easily.

Just ideas.

brodie · 16 Apr 2009, 17:36

@sambort said:

How somebody can arrive to 100 mb file?

One possibility would be using high resolution images for your textures. I have an arroway stone texture, for example, that's a 10000x4200 png weighing in at 91mb. If I were to use that as a texture without going into PS and downsizing it, it could easily make a huge SU file.

-Brodie

thomthom · 16 Apr 2009, 18:58

@unknownuser said:

@sambort said:

How somebody can arrive to 100 mb file?

One possibility would be using high resolution images for your textures. I have an arroway stone texture, for example, that's a 10000x4200 png weighing in at 91mb. If I were to use that as a texture without going into PS and downsizing it, it could easily make a huge SU file.

-Brodie

I thought that SU downsampled the embedded texture? Does it keep the original file and only downsample in memory?

brodie · 16 Apr 2009, 19:45

@thomthom said:

I thought that SU downsampled the embedded texture? Does it keep the original file and only downsample in memory?

I ran a quick test using the material I mentioned...

Material size 91,078 KB
Blank SU file 36 KB
SU file with Material textured to 1 plane 91,117

I think SU basically saves the whole noncompressed file inside itself (which would make sense, because if you go to edit the texture from SU it opens up a full resolution version of the file in your photo editing program), but it reduces the amount of pixels of that file just for display purposes within SU.

-Brodie

thomthom · 16 Apr 2009, 19:51

hmm... that's good to know as I'm about to start texturing a project for rendering. To keep the model workable I think I'll have to use low res textures for SU and then add a second diffuse layer for V-Ray to render. Extra work, but it'll keep the model workable.

brodie · 16 Apr 2009, 21:15

Yeah, that's pretty much my workflow with maxwell. I open the texture in PS and save it as a jpg with the worst possible compression quality. That does the trick for me. I think Richard even goes black and white to get the file even smaller and help with mapping the textures in SU.

One thing to be careful of, though, is changing the pixel size. I've heard that it doesn't affect how the UV mapping translates but my own experiments seem to show otherwise.

-Brodie

thomthom · 16 Apr 2009, 21:27

@unknownuser said:

Yeah, that's pretty much my workflow with maxwell. I open the texture in PS and save it as a jpg with the worst possible compression quality. That does the trick for me. I think Richard even goes black and white to get the file even smaller and help with mapping the textures in SU.

One thing to be careful of, though, is changing the pixel size. I've heard that it doesn't affect how the UV mapping translates but my own experiments seem to show otherwise.

-Brodie

You can change pixel size, but you should keep the proportions the same.
I remember once that I got a model with lots of large textures. They where nice to render with, but made SU very slow. So I ran a script that exported all textures to a folder, copied then to a temp folder, then ran a batch resize to a low (max 512x512). I then ran a script which reloaded the resized textures into SU. Afterwards I moved back the original sized textures. Then I had a manageable SU model which rendered high-res textures.

brodie · 16 Apr 2009, 21:45

Yeah, it may depend on the rendering program perhaps. I downsized the pixel size (keeping the ratio the same) for my wood flooring for the bedroom render challenge over in the gallery. It ended up coming into Maxwell too large or small (don't recall) so I had to resize it in Maxwell.

The workflow sounds a bit easier with maxwell if I understand you. SU just tells Maxwell what material to use so you can have totally different maps. The only reason you use the same image is so that it will translate the UV mapping properly. So I just downsize the map and use it in SU but that maxwell material that it corresponds to will have the full res version.