Date   

Re: ASCOM-Direct guiding and new V2 AP-GTO driver

Ray Gralak &#92;(Yahoo Groups&#92;) <yahoo@...>
 

Keith,

OK, you'll have to ask the Maxim folk if that's the proper option to use Pulse Guiding, which the AP driver 100%
supports.

All versions of AP controller are supported by the driver in regards to PulseGuide commands. You do not need the latest
version of firmware.

The ASCOM driver creates a log file by default so if you have a calibration attempt that failed please forward the
corresponding log file to me.

Thanks,

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf Of Keith
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:53 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: ASCOM-Direct guiding and new V2 AP-GTO driver



Hi Ray, in MaxIM, the guider method choice is ASCOM-Direct and I believe is not related at all to Parmount ME
micro-slew guiding. I
think that ASCOM-Direct is a variation of your Pulse-Guiding protocol. My friend with a AP900 GTO CP3 controller with
"J" version
firmware was unsuccessful in trying to use this method. The mount did not respond correctly at all to calibration and
resulted in
minimal movement. I took a look at the AP pdf files on the controller versions and see that "L" is the latest firwmare
and its History
comment shows that a new command entitled "variable slew move" is added. Is this the command that ASCOM-Direct is
using? Will
the ASCOM-Direct guide method only work with the latest firmware release?

Cheers, Keith

--- In ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ray Gralak &#92;(Yahoo Groups&#92;)" <yahoo@...> wrote:

Keith,

I believe Direct Drive is a Paramount ME term that means a micro-slew is applied. That is not supported by the
driver.
The driver accepts ASCOM PulseGuide commands.

-Ray



Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Joe Zeglinski
 

Thanks Kent,

For a complete answer, from a very knowledgable and experienced owner of these two mounts.
Your reply is definitely a keeper.

Joe


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Kent Kirkley
 

On Mar 29, 2010, at 4:22:23 PM, "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@...> wrote:

John,

I was talking with a scope store employee this afternoon about this 
discussion. He also pointed out the failing, that Paramount doesn't have 
slip clutches. If you wanted to manually "push" the Paramount to some sky 
position, you have to "unmesh the worm" to let the mount "swing freely". You 
need a computer to operate it , no chance to use it manually in a pinch, or 
if you just wanted to sky hop. You have to be confident in the balance as 
well, since once the worm is disengaged, the scope can slam into something, 
otherwise. The AP mount has an adjustable friction clutch, so you can do 
that carefully. Of course, as you mention, if the "remote" Paramount system 
forgets where it is, there is nothing to let slip, and it will keep driving 
until either the gear strips, or the OTA bends. :-(

Anyway, for the store guy, the lack of a friction clutch and no manual 
"push-to" operation, were deal breakers.

Joe
Joe, John...

That is not exactly true.

The Paramount Me has a 'Joystick' that allows one to point or move the mount around....anywhere...and a computer is not required to do this. Is this like the AP hand controller which is a computer in itself, no, it has no data bases, stores no locations nor does synchs or recals, it merely moves the mount.

Yes, you cannot just push the Paramount around.
Yes, when you 'unmesh the worms' the instrument 'package' is free to move where gravity takes it....but the Paramount prefers to be in almost perfect balance...in fact if very much out of balance it will cause a stall requiring rehoming the mount. In some ways, with the Paramount it is easier to find the point of balance because it move so freely compared to the AP which has noticeable resistance.

As Bill Mattil mentioned I'm on my second AP1200GTO and also have a Paramount.
They are both amazing mounts, each in their own right, but they are different.
I acquired the Paramount for remote use, but I have yet to do this....so I use it at my home or take it to a dark site...the same as the 1200GTO.

I would say the 1200GTO is a better portable mount....not so much because it breaks into two pieces but because I find polar alignment quicker since I use a Polar Alignment scope which has been boresited.
It can be well polar aligned and ready to image in 5 minutes. The Paramount does not offer this and one has to drift align or use T-Point and even if using Automapper it can take 30 minutes or longer.
Of course...in a permanent observatory...this becomes a moot point.

I also don't use the 'thru the mount wiring' on the Paramount because I don't have an observatory.
I probably would if I did...but one has to be very careful when running cables through the mount so that binding doesn't occur. 

While there are people successfully using the AP1200GTO remotely, the vast majority use the Paramount because of its homing feature; ie. it usually can't get lost. I say usually because on the Software Bisque site I have read where Paramounts have done strange unexpected things. Perhaps AP will offer, as an upgrade or accessory a homing feature somewhat like the El Capitan.

 In conclusion...

They are both excellent mounts.
The Paramount was designed for permanent and/or remote installations and that's where it's best.
The AP1200GTO is great used portably or permanently and can, with care, be used remotely.

Kent Kirkley 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Joe Zeglinski
 

John,

I was talking with a scope store employee this afternoon about this discussion. He also pointed out the failing, that Paramount doesn't have slip clutches. If you wanted to manually "push" the Paramount to some sky position, you have to "unmesh the worm" to let the mount "swing freely". You need a computer to operate it , no chance to use it manually in a pinch, or if you just wanted to sky hop. You have to be confident in the balance as well, since once the worm is disengaged, the scope can slam into something, otherwise. The AP mount has an adjustable friction clutch, so you can do that carefully. Of course, as you mention, if the "remote" Paramount system forgets where it is, there is nothing to let slip, and it will keep driving until either the gear strips, or the OTA bends. :-(

Anyway, for the store guy, the lack of a friction clutch and no manual "push-to" operation, were deal breakers.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "john_and_hong" <john_and_hong@...>
To: <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:04 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Need Help on Mount Decision




It is clear that both the AP1200 and the Paramount are both top end mounts. I own an AP1200, a friend owns a Paramount. You will be very happy with either mount.

I am very glad I chose the AP1200 for the following reasons:
(1) Because it splits into two pieces, it really is very portable. I carry it out to the pier in the garden each clear night. No problem at all.
(2) Being able to image past the meridian is wonderful. For me, this is a big advantage.
(3) I find it very reassuring that the AP1200 uses clutches, which reduces the risk of collision damage. My friend's Paramount became jammed against a step ladder in the observatory. It does not have clutches - not a nice experience...
(4) The AP1200 has less to go wrong. My friend's Paramount seems to fail to find the home sensor, and continues hunting into the night... (this was after the collision mentioned in (3))

But while both mounts can be used remotely, for remote use I think the Paramount has the edge.

Hope this helps
a very happy AP customer
John Murphy


Re: Fooling the meridian

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 3/29/2010 7:40:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
kcoker@... writes:


Could someone describe how to do the following? Let's say I want to
image an object that is 1.5 hours from transit and I know the scope could
safely track 2 hours before meridian for that object.
Use the Meridian Delay (bottom right hand button brings up the menu). Enter
2 E (2 hours east of the meridian line). Now use your GoTo to slew to the
object. The scope will go to the east side of the mount, (under the mount)
and point to the object. This assumes of course that the object is far enough
south so that the scope won't hit the pier since it is now on the wrong
side.

Do NOT use Sync to do this function, since this will cause the scope to go
to the wrong side for all objects. The Meridian Delay allows you to dial in
a safe 1 or 2 hours for the scope, plus the mount will remember that it is
in this mode, and when you return the Meridian Delay to zero, it will resume
functioning in the normal manner and will not slew the scope under the mount
or get lost.

Rolando


Thanks for all the advice on mount selection

mchlmaxim <mchlmaxim@...>
 

I want to thank everybody who responded to my email concermimg mount selection. It appears that the AP 1200GOTO is much loved and offers much. While the ParamountGM is excellent, someones comment about "where are the user satisfaction responses" appears somewhat true. I posted a similiar question on the Paramount group and I only got one response, in the same time-frame I received 6 responses from AP mount owners. John mentioned that Paramount may have a slight edge concerning remote operation (I suspect the tight intergration of the software suites), however the lack of clutches worries me. Murphy's law usually rings true. I suspect that even after I buy the additional need software to achieve seamless remote operation (similiar to that of ParamounGM), I'll still be money ahead. So it appears that the choice is clear. Now if scope selection was only that easy.

Thanks so very much,

Mike


Re: ASCOM-Direct guiding and new V2 AP-GTO driver

Keith <keith.myers@...>
 

Hi Ray, in MaxIM, the guider method choice is ASCOM-Direct and I believe is not related at all to Parmount ME micro-slew guiding. I think that ASCOM-Direct is a variation of your Pulse-Guiding protocol. My friend with a AP900 GTO CP3 controller with "J" version firmware was unsuccessful in trying to use this method. The mount did not respond correctly at all to calibration and resulted in minimal movement. I took a look at the AP pdf files on the controller versions and see that "L" is the latest firwmare and its History comment shows that a new command entitled "variable slew move" is added. Is this the command that ASCOM-Direct is using? Will the ASCOM-Direct guide method only work with the latest firmware release?

Cheers, Keith

--- In ap-gto@..., "Ray Gralak &#92;(Yahoo Groups&#92;)" <yahoo@...> wrote:

Keith,

I believe Direct Drive is a Paramount ME term that means a micro-slew is applied. That is not supported by the driver.
The driver accepts ASCOM PulseGuide commands.

-Ray


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 3/29/2010 5:18:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
kgkirkley@... writes:


the Paramount prefers to be in almost perfect balance...in fact if very
much out of balance it will cause a stall requiring rehoming the mount. In
some ways, with the Paramount it is easier to find the point of balance
because it move so freely compared to the AP which has noticeable resistance.
There are two philosophies on this. The first says that the axes should
move so freely that you can literally move the mount with your little pinkie.
This allows you to use a very small motor, assuming that you are very close
to perfect balance in both axes. This also requires that you are always in
perfect mesh and rely only on the point contact of worm and worm wheel, in
both directions (i.e., both leading and following tooth contact) to keep the
mount from moving with a wind load. Even the slightest departure from perfect
mesh will cause the mount to move with any kind of wind load. And even if
this is just a few arc seconds, that is enough to ruin stability.

The second says to put a small amount of friction damping into the axis to
that wind loading is not a problem, even if the worm gear wears and becomes
slightly out of mesh with the worm wheel. This requires a higher motor
torque, but allows you to run quite unbalanced, if you want.

I remember one particular Winter Star Party where I had a 6" refractor
mounted on the 900 mount and a nearby 5" scope was mounted on a competing mount
(one that believes in no friction damping). This 5" scope was unusable for
viewing Jupiter because of the gusting wind that the Florida Star Party (in
the Keys) is famous for. The image quivered back and forth because the worm
on this particular mount was slightly out of mesh, so the axes were able to
ping-pong back and forth between the leading and trailing tooth wall. The 900
was perfectly stable, and would have been even if the gears were quite out
of mesh.

I know it's a bit more difficult to get the balance exact, but it is not
really necessary. I listen to the motor, and can tell if it is straining in
one direction and freewheeling in the other just by using the buttons at 600x.
You could also use an ammeter in series with the 12 volt line and balance
until the two directions use equal current at slew speeds - a very accurate
way to balance.

Rolando


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

John Murphy
 

It is clear that both the AP1200 and the Paramount are both top end mounts. I own an AP1200, a friend owns a Paramount. You will be very happy with either mount.

I am very glad I chose the AP1200 for the following reasons:
(1) Because it splits into two pieces, it really is very portable. I carry it out to the pier in the garden each clear night. No problem at all.
(2) Being able to image past the meridian is wonderful. For me, this is a big advantage.
(3) I find it very reassuring that the AP1200 uses clutches, which reduces the risk of collision damage. My friend's Paramount became jammed against a step ladder in the observatory. It does not have clutches - not a nice experience...
(4) The AP1200 has less to go wrong. My friend's Paramount seems to fail to find the home sensor, and continues hunting into the night... (this was after the collision mentioned in (3))

But while both mounts can be used remotely, for remote use I think the Paramount has the edge.

Hope this helps
a very happy AP customer
John Murphy

--- In ap-gto@..., Anthony Ayiomamitis <anthony@...> wrote:

Joe,

What I find very amusing is that I have yet to see a single Paramount
user document explicitly why they prefer the ME. You see comments like
"the Paramount is better" and yet they do not provide a single reason
for their preference. If the ME is (so much) better than the AP, why is
it so difficult to document and itemize the pluses it has over the AP.

Oh yeah, by the way, another weakness of the ME is that you cannot ask
it to stop tracking while this is child's play for the AP mount. Case in
point: geosats as per http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Sat-Geosats.htm and
which came up during a discussion earlier today with a local friend who
was delighted to learn that the AP can do so with a push of a button
while the "almighty ME" cannot do so.

Probably every second time I set my equipment for work, I will place my
AP160 on the wrong side of the mount so that I can bypass the meridian
flip when my object of interest reaches the meridian. The "almighy ME"
flips automatically once it gets to three degrees past the meridian. Of
course, if you don't have a computer available for any reason, you also
don't have a functional "almighy ME".

I will not bother with the issue of portability between the AP and the
ME nor the fact that the AP mounts are literally "plug and play"!

As for service, there is no comparison. Somehow the Bisque brothers
expect you to log into their forum before you will get any support and
at the same time don't you dare mention a competing product. When I had
some negative comments about their CCDSoft software and it was time for
me to perhaps switch to Maxim/DL, they blocked out my references to
Maxim. Very funny! Oh yeah, I got kicked out too.

Hey Mike, once you go AP, you never go back. This applies to both their
scopes ... and mounts ... and accessories ... and service!

Anthony.

O/H Joseph Zeglinski Ýãñáøå:


Mike,

A few years ago, the decision for my AP-900 was extremely easy.

Although you might feel that the competitive mount is similar in
quality, a HUGE asset that sold me on Astro Physics products is their
attention to customers.

Look at all the other mounts (and optics) user groups, and see how
often, if ever, you see the manufacturer, or his tech staff,
participating,
on a daily basis, helping resolve any questions or problems. Not only
does
the owner, Roland, jump right in with detailed answers, about the
product,
but also gives the "inside story" of how some feature works. Besides, you
also hear not only from tech & sales staff, but also his wife Marj.
It's a
family here.

Besides, an AP mount is a thing of beauty - doesn't look like The Borg
Cube
in the other case.

No question, when the engineering seems comparable, an AP mount is the
best
way to go.

Sorry, for the gushing here, but others, will tell you the same thing.
Roland takes a personal pride in his work, and will spend time to get you
going - and you get a superb, well designed and crafted product.

I'm sure that the Paramount is a very good mount, but as I have said
in the
past, an AP mount is something I would "aspire" to owning.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "mchlmaxim" <mchlmaxim@... <mailto:mchlmaxim%40yahoo.com>>
To: <ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:05 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Need Help on Mount Decision

Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO
mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and
capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also
give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems
with the
GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one
over the
other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps
everybody
went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is
apprecicated.
If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I
consider
to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike



------------------------------------


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Anthony Ayiomamitis <anthony@...>
 

Joe,

What I find very amusing is that I have yet to see a single Paramount user document explicitly why they prefer the ME. You see comments like "the Paramount is better" and yet they do not provide a single reason for their preference. If the ME is (so much) better than the AP, why is it so difficult to document and itemize the pluses it has over the AP.

Oh yeah, by the way, another weakness of the ME is that you cannot ask it to stop tracking while this is child's play for the AP mount. Case in point: geosats as per http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Sat-Geosats.htm and which came up during a discussion earlier today with a local friend who was delighted to learn that the AP can do so with a push of a button while the "almighty ME" cannot do so.

Probably every second time I set my equipment for work, I will place my AP160 on the wrong side of the mount so that I can bypass the meridian flip when my object of interest reaches the meridian. The "almighy ME" flips automatically once it gets to three degrees past the meridian. Of course, if you don't have a computer available for any reason, you also don't have a functional "almighy ME".

I will not bother with the issue of portability between the AP and the ME nor the fact that the AP mounts are literally "plug and play"!

As for service, there is no comparison. Somehow the Bisque brothers expect you to log into their forum before you will get any support and at the same time don't you dare mention a competing product. When I had some negative comments about their CCDSoft software and it was time for me to perhaps switch to Maxim/DL, they blocked out my references to Maxim. Very funny! Oh yeah, I got kicked out too.

Hey Mike, once you go AP, you never go back. This applies to both their scopes ... and mounts ... and accessories ... and service!

Anthony.

O/H Joseph Zeglinski :


Mike,

A few years ago, the decision for my AP-900 was extremely easy.

Although you might feel that the competitive mount is similar in
quality, a HUGE asset that sold me on Astro Physics products is their
attention to customers.

Look at all the other mounts (and optics) user groups, and see how
often, if ever, you see the manufacturer, or his tech staff, participating,
on a daily basis, helping resolve any questions or problems. Not only does
the owner, Roland, jump right in with detailed answers, about the product,
but also gives the "inside story" of how some feature works. Besides, you
also hear not only from tech & sales staff, but also his wife Marj. It's a
family here.

Besides, an AP mount is a thing of beauty - doesn't look like The Borg Cube
in the other case.

No question, when the engineering seems comparable, an AP mount is the best
way to go.

Sorry, for the gushing here, but others, will tell you the same thing.
Roland takes a personal pride in his work, and will spend time to get you
going - and you get a superb, well designed and crafted product.

I'm sure that the Paramount is a very good mount, but as I have said in the
past, an AP mount is something I would "aspire" to owning.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "mchlmaxim" <mchlmaxim@... <mailto:mchlmaxim%40yahoo.com>>
To: <ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:05 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Need Help on Mount Decision

Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO
mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and
capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also
give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems
with the
GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one
over the
other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps
everybody
went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is
apprecicated.
If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I
consider
to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike



------------------------------------


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Jeff Crilly <jlc@...>
 

To me, the key difference is that the AP1200 is workable for "single night portability".
While the paramount can be considered portable, IMO it is less portable than the AP.

Certainly folks are indeed using the ap1200 remotely- eg there's a couple of ap1200s at the south pole.

Probably the biggest concern I have with using the ap1200 remotely is cable mgmt. Though there are workarounds for this issue - like routing carefully and doing some testing to verify there are no snags. Afaict the paramount has some nice through-the-mount cable routing.

(that said I'm not using any automation.)

Possibly, folks buy AP for portability - that was a factor for me.

jeff

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:05 AM, "mchlmaxim" <mchlmaxim@...> wrote:

Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Joe Zeglinski
 

Mike,

A few years ago, the decision for my AP-900 was extremely easy.

Although you might feel that the competitive mount is similar in quality, a HUGE asset that sold me on Astro Physics products is their attention to customers.

Look at all the other mounts (and optics) user groups, and see how often, if ever, you see the manufacturer, or his tech staff, participating, on a daily basis, helping resolve any questions or problems. Not only does the owner, Roland, jump right in with detailed answers, about the product, but also gives the "inside story" of how some feature works. Besides, you also hear not only from tech & sales staff, but also his wife Marj. It's a family here.

Besides, an AP mount is a thing of beauty - doesn't look like The Borg Cube in the other case.

No question, when the engineering seems comparable, an AP mount is the best way to go.

Sorry, for the gushing here, but others, will tell you the same thing. Roland takes a personal pride in his work, and will spend time to get you going - and you get a superb, well designed and crafted product.

I'm sure that the Paramount is a very good mount, but as I have said in the past, an AP mount is something I would "aspire" to owning.



Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "mchlmaxim" <mchlmaxim@...>
To: <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:05 PM
Subject: [ap-gto] Need Help on Mount Decision


Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike



------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links




Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

cford81@...
 

I would agree with the open design and simplicity aspects of the AP1200. It interfaces with pretty much anything.


Also if you want the flexibility of portability the AP1200 is an easier mount to move around (and disassemble) in this size class. I believe that the Paramount is 48v rather than 12v making it a little more cumbersome for field use?



Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Salyer" <salyer@...>
To: ap-gto@...
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:20:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Need Help on Mount Decision






Both mounts are excellent. I picked AP for my mount because they have
an open design. They freely explain how things work and give others
the ability to write software interfacing to their hardware. I also
didn't need the load capability of either a Paramount or AP1200 so I
picked the AP900.

Greg

At 01:06 PM 3/29/2010, you wrote:


Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP
1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and
capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also
give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems
with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I
consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP
owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process.
Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO,
what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO
control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Orthogonality help for my lx 200 10 inch f 6.3

Suresh Mohan <swashya@...>
 

My Mach 1 has arrived at the airport and awaiting customs clearance! Anyway
here is my problem and this is what is im trying to do.My present mount is
orion atlas my scope is lx 200 10 inch f6.3,orion 80ED and orion guidescope



My lx 200 has a losmandy dovetail, both ends are fixed to the scope
s body screws, except on one end there is space for some side to side
movement.

This is the test I performed after determining which axis is RA
in the cross haired eyepiece, aimed scope to north ;put counterweight bar
parallel to the ground centred polaris using mechanical adjustment, now I
rotated in RA 180 degrees(using the setting circle) , corrected half the RA
error by adding shims to front end. What should I do next?

Should it be rotate RA axis to the first position ;recenter polaris in RA?
Come back to 2nd position and correct error by half?

I noticed that on the dec axis the star actually moves out of the
12mm eye piece, how do I correct this?Can I use polaris to adjust the DEC
error as well ie by the provided screw with space for side to side movement

Thanks

Suresh


Re: Thanks for all the advice on mount selection

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 3/29/2010 3:14:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
mchlmaxim@... writes:


Now if scope selection was only that easy.
What are you looking for in a scope?

Rolando


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

Salyer <salyer@...>
 

Both mounts are excellent. I picked AP for my mount because they have an open design. They freely explain how things work and give others the ability to write software interfacing to their hardware. I also didn't need the load capability of either a Paramount or AP1200 so I picked the AP900.

Greg

At 01:06 PM 3/29/2010, you wrote:


Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

William R. Mattil <wrmattil@...>
 

mchlmaxim wrote:
Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?


Mike,

Kent Kirkley has one of each, an ME and a AP1200GTO and I'm sure that he can share some information with you. From my perspective, having two AP Mounts and using them remotely for the most part I can say that they are easy to set up in this type of environment and in my opinion <caveats apply> the AP mounts interface is cleaner and simpler due to the AP Support of ASCOM ( Thanks Roland and Ray) The Bisque mount is tied to a computer running the Sky and cannot function without it and they don't directly support ASCOM at all. Even though there are many people using Bisque mounts remotely there seems to be two methodologies used. One is ASCOM, and the other is using all of Bisques software suite.

An AP1200 doesn't not support a hardware "home" position. The Bisque mount does. Just a data point. I don't think its absolutely required as many people use an AP Mount remotely.

So I think, caveats again apply, that you need to determine what software you plan on using prior to making this decision. Both mounts are extremely capable.

I'm sure someone will offer a different opinion :)

Regards

Bill

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com


Re: Need Help on Mount Decision

daniel bosch portell <boschportell@...>
 

So sincerely. If you want work remotely, the Paramount is your choise.

To: ap-gto@...
From: mchlmaxim@...
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:06:36 +0000
Subject: [ap-gto] Need Help on Mount Decision

Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike



------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links



Need Help on Mount Decision

mchlmaxim <mchlmaxim@...>
 

Hi,
The is my second post. I need help in deciding between the AP 1200GTO mount and the Paramount GM.

Both mounts appear approximately equal in terms of capacity and capability. I give a nod to AP's value and solid engineering. I also give a nod to Paramount's tight intergration of software systems with the GOTO capabilities. So the questions is, why should I consider one over the other. I know these forum is comprised of AP owners, so perhaps everybody went through the same decision process. Any objectivity is apprecicated. If I do purchase the AP1200GTO, what software platforms should I consider to achieve total GOTO control (remote-operation)?

sincerely,

Mike


Re: Another q. from first-time user

Suresh Mohan <swashya@...>
 

I have the in use issue in my laptop often, after some help I learnt that
in use can be assigned by you after u open the dialougue box: port settings-
advanced- and assign the comp port as required( though it might say in use);
I had to do this as IP wont work if assigned a com port beyond 10.

I hope this info might be of some use

Suresh



_____

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf Of
CurtisC
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:09 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Another q. from first-time user





I did learn something in online research. Win XP has a bug where it assigns
COM ports as being "in use" even if a device installation has been aborted
or something else has gone wrong. PulseGuide etc. was correctly identifying
COM3 as available and appropriate, but Keyspan accepted Win XP's info that
the port was in use and adopted COM5. It's possible to go reassign Keyspan's
port to COM3 and blow past the warning that it's "in use." It isn't. So that
way Keyspan and PG agree. Even with that correction, however, PG still can't
actually talk to the mount, and when I look at the log, it's polling the
mount over and over without success. Somehow I still think Bluetooth is at
the root of this, but I don't know how to totally clean it off the computer.
Bluetooth wasn't on there when I bought the machine in 2006. I installed it.


--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups. <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Ray
Gralak &#92;(Yahoo Groups&#92;)" <yahoo@...> wrote:

It connected up without a hitch on the 64-bit Vista computer. The only
needed intervention was assigning the COM ports
in
PulseGuide and TheSky X. Each can control the mount.
OK, the good thing is that means the Keyspan, cable, and mount are good.
The bad thing is that there is some
compatibility or installation problem With your Toshiba laptop. You may
want to try updating your laptop to XP SP3.

-Ray