[chaoscope] Large Renders - was Re: ... thoughts about 0.3

  • From: "Manu" <artissima@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <chaoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:48:37 +0200

Hi There!

i guess it's got nothing to do with one's personal computer,
as it shows the same error-message on my machine
(when trying to render large; this is a *must! ;-)

(had also no probs to render large in previous version)

[and no time yet for extensive playing/testing the new release:-(  ]


best, Manu

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Peter Adams" <sue_me_now198@xxxxxxxxxxx>
An: <chaoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Samstag, 17. Juni 2006 12:30
Betreff: [chaoscope] Re: Let's hear your thoughts about 0.3



>Haven't had that one yet, would switching to Simple Preview in the Options be of any >help? What is the maximum size you've been able to create without an error message?

I'm afraid simple preview makes no difference, even with the lowest iterations allowed. I've done some experimenting though, and it seems that the maximum resolution it allows me is 3969x4081, but the width and the height are completely independent of each other (i.e. it doesn't allow me to do 3970x100 or 100x4082).

Just to clarify, the "Unable to link rendering context." error has "OpenGL application error" in the title bar.

I'm on WinXP with 768MB RAM, 1.7GHz P4 processor, and GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB (but graphics card is irrelevant, isn't it?)

Any thoughts?

- Peter


====================================================== The Chaoscope mailing-list Archives : //www.freelists.org/archives/chaoscope Admin contact : chaoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web site : http://www.chaoscope.org ======================================================


====================================================== The Chaoscope mailing-list Archives : //www.freelists.org/archives/chaoscope Admin contact : chaoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web site : http://www.chaoscope.org ======================================================

Other related posts:

  • » [chaoscope] Large Renders - was Re: ... thoughts about 0.3