Celestia Forums

It wasn?t the ideal,but here it is...
http://img593.imageshack.us/i/heleneincelestia.jpg/
http://img217.imageshack.us/i/steinsincelestia.jpg/
Enjoy!

That's not bad.
What model are you using for Helene?

Now I?m at work.When I get home,I will verify.
Steins is using the generic model asteroid.cms.The data from the asteroid is from the addon Rosetta of BrianJ.

Just for curiosity...why so many people aren?t up to date with video cards.My GTS 250 is outdated,but it is one of the best video cards around.Even the developers don?t have a card like for example,a GTX 260 or Radeon HD 5700/5800 series.Is Celestia being more CPU demanded?

Although Celestia will run faster on the newest high-end graphics cards, it does not yet use any of the new features in OpenGL v3. Any graphics chipset which supports OpenGL v2 will show all of Celestia's eye-candy.

Many, perhaps even most, people don't feel the need to run Celestia at the maximum possible frames per second. 15 fps usually is good enough, and sometimes less is acceptable, too.

15fps and lower?

That's really low and noticable if the scene isn't static.
Don't understand how people can tolerate such jerkyness.

duds26 wrote:15fps and lower?
Don't understand how people can tolerate such jerkyness.

When I was your age, I had to load pages with modems making that annoying screechy sound. Connections to a web page had to through this worse-than-dial-up connection both ways, and no anti-virus!

You got it nice now with your high-tech gadgets, accessing Twitter from your stopwatch and all. But fact is: it hasn't always been so good. Back in the day, we used bulleton boards (and not the ones you attach stickynotes to) and we were thankful.

We were happy when our graphics cards ran Minesweeper.

When internet first was becoming a public use entity if you were happy to have that 1200 baud dial-up connection ... Forget webpages loading in less than 45 seconds! Faxing was still a better way to send documents.