|
Low Framerate
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Hi Guys,
I just upgraded from Version 2.26.3 to 2.28.1. I am running the same .robo file on all versions, but my frame rate has dropped from 20 FPS to less than 5 FPS with the new version.
With my laptop, I get slightly higher rates than with the desktop computer.
I dropped back to earlier versions, and here is the results as I run them on my Desktop computer.
2.28.1 = 2-3 FPS.. (Laptop 10 FPS)
2.26.3 = 22 FPS
2.24.6 = 22 FPS
2.1.0.3 = 28-30 FPS.. (Laptop 30 FPS)
I have attached the .robo file that I am using
Whatever is causing this is pushing me back to the earlier version, as I need the framerate more than the new features. As is illustrated in the .robo file, I'm not doing anything very special, just looking at the camera view and sending out serial commands to my robot for Mech Warfare.
I like using RoboRealm.
Thanks
Gary
 program.robo
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
13 year
|
Gary,
That is indeed strange ... normally the framerate goes the other way with newer versions.
Can you do a quick check in the newer version and see what the timing numbers are (the gray values on the right side of the pipeline) and which module is the slowest. That's most likely the module that is slowing things down from one version to the next.
The other way to determine this is to selectively disable modules until you see a significant drop. With your current robofile as it we get around 60fps ... but I assume that the TrendNET module is active when you use this? It is currently disabled in the robofile that you included.
Thanks,
STeven.
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Hi Steven,
I have been enabling the camera module. I was just off when I saved the .robo.
I disabled all of the other modules, and it made no improvement. The number on the pipeline is in the 0.030 range.
With version 2.1.0.3, the camera module is at 0.005 all others enabled at 0.000, and 30 FPS.
One thing I just looked at, was the CPU usage. Roborealm is using 99% of the CPU, while on my Laptop it is only using about 50%.
With 2.1.0.3, the CPU usage is still 99%, but RoboRealm is blazing along.
My computer is a Dell 4550, 2.52 Ghz, 1.5 gig of RAM.
Thanks
Gary
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Oh Yeah.. I'm running Windows XP on both machines.
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Hi Again,
Well, I've completely stripped RoboRealm from my desktop machine, I reinstalled version 2.28.1. Started with only a camera module setup with the Trendnet IP110 camera. I still get just barely 10-12 FPS. The pipeline number is 00:005.
If I drop back to version 2.24 or 2.26 with just the camera module, I get about 15 FPS. But with 2.1 A good solid 30 FPS. As I don't have any versions between 2.1 and 2.24, I can't really tell when things went south, but I wonder if it was when the IP422 was added..
I'm at a loss.. at this point I'm just using version 2.1 to get decent Framerate.
Thanks
Gary
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
13 year
|
Gary,
There is a good chance that something changed when IP422 was added ... we will update the system if we think there was an error and may have caused a new one.
Do you by any chance have the camera online that we could test a couple things from our side?
Thanks,
STeven.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
13 year
|
Gary,
And if you could just be sure to download the latest version as we made some changes to that module to help with efficiency. Let us know if you see any changes.
STeven.
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Steven,
Thanks, I'm out of town at the moment, but I will test the changes as soon as I get home later this week.
Thanks again
Gary
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Hi Steven,
I have installed version 2.28.5 on my desktop and 2.28.4 on my laptop. On both computers, I have the software running with default settings, and only the Trendnet camera module being used. The camera, (IP110W) is set at VGA with normal resolution.
On the desktop, I am getting between 13 and 14 FPS. On the laptop I get in the 20 FPS range. With version 2.1.0.3 I am still getting in the mid 20 FPS range, and the laptop gets 28-30.
One thing I just noticed this morning, was that even though the framerate is only 13-14, there doesn't seem to be a lot of latency in the image. The display appears to be about as fast as when I get closer to 30 FPS.
I'll leave things on and connected. If you need to connect to me, I'm not sure what it takes, but I can shut off my firewall.
Thanks
Gary
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
13 year
|
Gary,
I wonder if the fps reporting was just updated and may not be the same. Can you try a visual test by holding your hand closed in front of the camera, open you hand and see how long it takes for the video to show an open hand. You will not be able to count/time this but you should be able to get a feel for the rate disregarding the fps reported. Does this reflect your above comment on it seeming the same? It is possible that previous versions did not wait for a new image and would *count* a previous received image as a new one that thus report a bad fps. This was a correction that was made a while back but we're not sure when.
The reason for using your hand is that you can feel when your hand is open/closed and don't have to watch it and the video. We use this technique as a very rough way of checking timing.
STeven.
|
|
|
|
Gary Warren from United States [9 posts] |
13 year
|
Hi Steven,
When I do the hand open/close test comparing the view on both the laptop and the desktop at the same time, they do appear to be the same. I was running 2.28.4 on the laptop +-15 FPS, and 2.1.0.3 on the desktop +- 24 FPS.
It may very well be as you say. I will completely rebuild my .robo on the new version, as it doesn't seem to like the one from the early version very much.
Oh as a side note. The display point module has changed too. When using this module with crosshair or X-mark, the width of the line changes as the size is changed. The crosshair and X-mark do this, but none of the other selections do. The line gets wide enough to interfere with the display.
Thanks
Gary
|
|
This Thread