I was testing the model Valle Marineris 3D in Mars2 and initially the frame rate WITH the Dual Core Optimizer was around 20 fps.Then,I activate thread optimization in Nvidia Control Panel and the perfomance dips to 16 fps.So I thought the problem was the Dual Core Optimizer and uninstall it,but for my surprise,the frame rate dips again to below 14 fps.Intrigued,I reinstalled the AMD Nvidia driver and the Dual Core Optimizer,but in the same conditions as before,the frame rate reach at most 16 fps.What??s happened?
The only stranges things are that Celestia reaches a frame rate above the synchronation rate in few seconds,i.e,76 fps to a synchro rate of 75 Hz and the temperatura of the VGA was 10 degrees Celsius above normal,ie,60 degrees.What went wrong?
I was using my configuration in Celestia 1.5.0 pre4
Frame rate bug
-
cartrite
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: 15.09.2005
- With us: 19 years 2 months
- Location: Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania, USA Greate Grandfother from Irshava, Zakarpattia Oblast Ukraine
danielj,
If you are testing a Mars2 model from the motherlode, they where never updated to work with 1.5.0prex. They were created while 1.4.1 was developed. Your dip in frame rates may be due to other features like clouds, galaxies, atmospheres, ogl2 render path, etc.
cartrite
If you are testing a Mars2 model from the motherlode, they where never updated to work with 1.5.0prex. They were created while 1.4.1 was developed. Your dip in frame rates may be due to other features like clouds, galaxies, atmospheres, ogl2 render path, etc.
cartrite
VivoBook_ASUSLaptop X712JA_S712JA Intel(R) UHD Graphics 8gb ram. Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1035G1 CPU @ 1.00GHz, 1190 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s) 8 GB ram. Running on Windows 11 and OpenSuse 15.4
I have clouds enabled BUT on Earth,which is far,far away.Earth was also with the BMNG.I haven??t toggled any galaxy or nebula.So I can??t understand what happended...
cartrite wrote:danielj,
If you are testing a Mars2 model from the motherlode, they where never updated to work with 1.5.0prex. They were created while 1.4.1 was developed. Your dip in frame rates may be due to other features like clouds, galaxies, atmospheres, ogl2 render path, etc.
cartrite
Sorry,it wasn??t a bug!It was an understanding problem... 
First of all,toggling clouds reduces the perfomance in around 5 fps.Second,the frame rate in all rendering paths except Open GL 2.0 is about 3 fps bigger.Third,the frame rate from Fraps measured with my Athlon64 3000 was in 800X600,and not in 1024X768,like I??m measuring now.And finnaly,the Dual Core optimizer combined with the threaded optimization activated in Nvidia Control Panel DO improve the perfomance.Without the threaded optimization,the frame rate is around 19-20 fps.With it,the frame rate stays around 20-21 fps.
It was better to buy another video card,but even changing to the dual core increases the perfomance a bit.For example,I can put the time rate at 1000X and the MGS orbiting Mars and don??t have ANY slowdown!The improvement over some games and Google Earth is much bigger.However,someone REMEMBERED that Celestia ISN??T yet optimized to dual core.Considering this,it was a nice result.
Topic closed.
First of all,toggling clouds reduces the perfomance in around 5 fps.Second,the frame rate in all rendering paths except Open GL 2.0 is about 3 fps bigger.Third,the frame rate from Fraps measured with my Athlon64 3000 was in 800X600,and not in 1024X768,like I??m measuring now.And finnaly,the Dual Core optimizer combined with the threaded optimization activated in Nvidia Control Panel DO improve the perfomance.Without the threaded optimization,the frame rate is around 19-20 fps.With it,the frame rate stays around 20-21 fps.
It was better to buy another video card,but even changing to the dual core increases the perfomance a bit.For example,I can put the time rate at 1000X and the MGS orbiting Mars and don??t have ANY slowdown!The improvement over some games and Google Earth is much bigger.However,someone REMEMBERED that Celestia ISN??T yet optimized to dual core.Considering this,it was a nice result.
Topic closed.
Actually,it??s not that easy.It depends on the CPU and VGA temperature,or other unknown factor.Because I try again and the frame rate returns to 19-20 fps in the same conditions.And putting in 800X600 didn??t help because there is some sort of incompatiblity with the LCD.BUT I GIVE UP WORRING ABOUT THAT...