I'm really enjoying getting to grips with Stellarium, and have installed it and all the extra star catalogues on my W7 desktop and XP laptop. Desktop has 6GB RAM and shows all stars down to 18th mag. Laptop has 2GB RAM and is not showing stars fainter than 16th mag. The catalogues were downloaded within the program and are all present. I presume it's a memory problem - any idea what settings might solve it?
Please read and vote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/stellarium/+bug/730110
Thanks, Alexander. I've browsed through that report, but no help. I had a look at the json file, but no checksum record for catalogue8. Incidentally it is Windows XP Pro SP3. Looked at the json file on my W7 computer and it is exactly the same. So the cause isn't there.
Looks like it might be specific to that version of Windows. I guess this isn't going to be resolved since the vast majority of new users will be on W7 or above.
I suppose can live with 16th mag ;-)
And when the next version is released I'll give it a try. I really like the program - very easy user interface and excellent rendering of the sky. I can hardly believe it's free!
Peter Vasey http://www.madpc.co.uk/~peterv
I have had trouble with catalogue 8 not loading on some installations since version 9. It is some sort of a bug as far as I can work out with mmat loading. It is not Cat 8 itself that is the problem. Try removing cat 7 or cat 6 and you will find that cat 8 loads OK.
On this computer Win 7 64 bit Cat 8 loads without any bother.
One thing I never tried was loading cats 7 and 8 before cat 6. That may make better use of the memory.
Yes, removing cat 7 also works for me. But not removing cat 6 with 7 present. So (at least in Windows XP SP3) it would appear to be linked to memory use. My Observatory laptop is XP home, 1 GB RAM and also won't run all the catalogues.
My XP Pro laptop has 2 GB RAM and a permanent 3 GB virtual memory block on the hard drive - should be enough, but doesn't appear to be. If I could be sure a memory upgrade would do the trick I might consider it - the computer would in general run faster. But I don't use it all the time, and it's not worth the £50 upgrade cost unless I can guarantee success!
Log in to post a comment.