At 01:51 AM 3/2/2005, Yves Laroche wrote:

My point of view is that TPOINT may have better pointing accuracy if the
mapping run could be built via ACP with its consistent approach
slewing. ACP with its consistent approach slewing may add more
precision when using with the PinPoint engine than just using TheSky and
TPOINT in standalone mode (without consistent approach slewing).

This is not correct. Yves, I'm not sure that you understand what TPoint
does with a point, when used with something like Automapper II.

You take a list of Alt-Az points spread out over the sky, in as dense a
pattern as you think you need.

You slew the scope to that alt-az position. You take an image, and CCDSoft
then does an "insert WCS" and in effect plate solves the image and links
that to TheSky6. TheSky6 identifies the center of the image and uses that
info for that mapped point. If Automapper fails to map the point for any
reason (too few/too many stars, north angle off, etc.), it comes back to
that alt-az point later and takes another image. Same alt-az point but
different star pattern now. This change may allow the map to work now ...
at any rate, this IS done accurately.

I've done Automapper runs til I'm blue in the face with portable setups. It
allows me to reliably tune polar alignment and produce an accurately
pointing system.

The Tpoint model won't " have better pointing accuracy if the

mapping run could be built via ACP with its consistent approach
slewing" ....

Either the point is mapped or it isn't. You are not really mapping stars.
You are mapping Alt-Az points. The stars just happen to be there.

At any rate, this probably isn't the proper forum for discussing TPoint ...
And if you have other deeper questions, feel free to bring them up on the
other forum (SoftBisqUser), where Patrick Wallace does monitor. I don't
want to belabor this here as it is hijacking this forum away from support
for AP mounts.


Dave