Re: Counter weight up slew vs. continuing past the meridian, any real differences?
IMHO there is no difference. I don't use APCC/APMM, but just use SGP and set any required meridian delay in the V2 driver. For me the decision is determined by what the starting position of my target is and how long I want to image it. So, if I have a target within 3 hours east of the meridian and want to image it for say 8 hours, then I'll set the meridian delay such that I start CW up and finish CW down. However, if the target is 5 hours east of the meridian and I want to image for 8 hours, then the reverse is true and I'll start CW down and finish CW up. I've never encountered any issues with slow slews, or back and forth sides, as plate solving runs. Of course, I do need to check that I won't get any pier crashes and I find it easier to monitor that with CW up at the start, knowing that if I'm good there then very likely to be good after all the way through and past the meridian.
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of skester@... <skester@...>
Sent: 13 March 2021 17:02
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [ap-gto] Counter weight up slew vs. continuing past the meridian, any real differences?
I've seen many comments about the ability of AP mounts to slew to a counterweight up position with the scope on the east side, so that you can avoid the flip and continue west. Assuming I want to track the target from -3hrs to +3hrs of the meridian, how if at all is this different to starting with a normal slew with the scope on the west side, and ending in the counter weight up position (assuming clearance of course)? Earlier this week it was mentioned that due to how SGP commands the mount during a plate solve/center, starting counter weight up invokes the safety slew thus making very small adjustments quit slow. It would seem a solution would be to just reverse the process and end rather than start counter weight up. Am I missing something here?