|
PemPro problem
Larry Simpson
Ray When I open PemPro, an error box appears. It has the title "AstroPhysics Point Mapper" and the content "Error HA=-442, Dec=1" It is hard to remove Larry
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
naperastro@...
Ray, will the Home/Limits/APEU functionality for encoder-equipped mounts be included in the final version of 1.5, or will that be in a future yet-to-be-determined version?
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC PRO Beta 1.5.0.10 pointing correction keeping me 33 arcmin off target??
naperastro@...
Howard,
Is there any functional difference in using APPM's Plate Solve and ReCal versus doing a plate solve and sync in MaxIM (with "sync" translated to "recal" in APCC)?
|
|
|
|
Re: A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing?
Roland Christen
Off-axis guiding should be free of differential flex, but it depends on the actual mechanical coupling and the weight of the camera. The test method I outlined should eliminate it as a suspect or perhaps show that it is. The best approach to solving problems is to rule out any and all variables, one at a time.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: eric.marlatt@... [ap-gto] To: ap-gto Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2016 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing? He mentioned he's using an OAG, so there shouldn't be any flexure. Strange problem, you've seen nothing like this when using your Atlas? I ask because with the numbers you gave, your worst guiding with the Mach1 was the same as the best guiding with the Atlas.
|
|
|
|
Re: A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing?
Eric M
He mentioned he's using an OAG, so there shouldn't be any flexure. Strange problem, you've seen nothing like this when using your Atlas? I ask because with the numbers you gave, your worst guiding with the Mach1 was the same as the best guiding with the Atlas.
|
|
|
|
Re: A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing?
Roland Christen
If your guider graph gives consistently 1 arc sec or less RMS guiding, then it doesn't matter how long your exposure is, the result will be round stars. In other words a 5 minute exposure will look just the same as a 30 minute exposure. If the guider graph is basically flat in both axes and not drifting up or down, then the mount and your guiding software are both doing the job properly.
The mount cannot anticipate how the stars might be drifting on your imaging camera chip. It may be that the off-axis guider and your imaging camera are slowly moving with respect to each other as the exposure advances (differential flexure). Thus a 5 minute exposure produces round stars, but a 30 minute produces trailed stars. You can do a simple test to see if this is the case. Take a series of 5 minute exposures (maybe 5 to 10) where the stars of each exposure are round. Do not turn on drizzle or move the guide star during each exposure. Take each of the exposures and place them one on top of the other, but do not register the stars, rather register the edges of the format. If the imaging camera is differentially moving with respect to the guide camera, you will see a position shift between the first and last 5 minute exposure. You can also measure the centroid of a star in each exposure to see how far it has shifted.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: henry.ck.kwok@... [ap-gto] To: ap-gto Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2016 4:03 pm Subject: [ap-gto] A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing? I have taken my second hand Mach1GTO (7 year old) out for the last two nights first time since I bought it in July and taken it back home half way across the globe to New Zealand. I am a bit sad to say I am a little disappointed by the guiding performance. Don't get me wrong, I think its performance is still better than my old Atlas, but it is just not as good as I expect it to be. I am not sure if my expectation is too high. Having said that, being a new mount to me I suspect it is more of user/setup error rather than with the mount per se. I would appreciate if some advice can be given on areas I should check to get better performance out of the mount.
Setup:
Mach1GTO
OTA is 6" RC
Guiding is with OAG using a Lodestar Mk1
Reducer is AP CCDT67
Focal length is 1050 mm or thereabout at f/7 ish
Control is v
ia PHD2, SGPro, AP ASCOM driver
Before the Mach1GTO, I have an NEQ6 (Atlas), I get consistent 5 minute subs and can get 10 minute sub with about 25% loss due to guiding error. RMS error has reported by PHD2 with my Atlas is about 0.7-1.1". Some of this is due to the constant poor seeing in Auckland, NZ due to the coastal unpredictable weather, and some of it is the mount as one part of the sky is better than another. I upgraded to the Mach1GTO in the hope of achieving longer subs as I wish to get into narrowband imaging.
On the first night I did a quick polar alignment with PoleMaster double side taped to the mount housing. I have not had good result with PoleMaster but I wanted a quick test so thats what I used. I get guiding rms error better than my Atlas at about 0.7-0.9" rms. However looking at the guide graph there are many guide corrections - similar to what I got with my Atlas. I got good 5 minute subs, b
ut at 10 minutes there is some minor egging of stars and at 20 minutes the stars are obviously oblong. At the end of the night the guiding deteriorated so I did a test of my polar alignment and noted significant DEC drift of 40 arc min, so I put it down to poor PA.
On the second night I spent some time drift aligning using PHD2 tool. Both Azimuth and Altitude axis reported less than 1 arc min error. However, guiding graph shows similar pattern with lots of corrections. The RMS error gets down to 0.4" and up to 0.7/8" so it is well within the pixel scale of 1 arc sec / pixel of my setup. 5 min sub is good; 10 min sub is acceptable but very slightly egged if I pixel-peep and 15 minute sub gives me "trianglular stars" (no, the optic is not pinched, stars are round at 5 minutes).
I have gone through my usual set up routine as before. I have balanced as well as I could.
Could not really set East-Heavy as I simply could not tell, but I understand it does not matter with AP mount. Everything is bolted tight. There is no cable drag...
So in summary the Mach1GTO can achieve what I had with my Atlas but it does not seem to enable me get longer subs. Where should I be looking to get better performance?
- Could the mount need adjustment since it has travelled from San Francisco to San Diego by UPS then by commercial flight back to NZ? If so how can I tell if it needs adjustment? PHD2 reported a DEC backlash of 600 ms whatever that means - which is miles better than my Atlas by the way.
- Better balancing with a fish scale?
- Better polar alignment (will have to be software assisted, as I am in Southern Hemisphere)?
- Non mount related issue?
Many thanks!
Henry
|
|
|
|
Re: A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing?
Andy Galasso
Henry, Feel free to post your PHD2 Guide Log on the PHD2 Forum if you would like the PHD2 experts to analyze it for you. It would also help to post one of the 15-minute subs (raw FITS format) showing the issue. Andy
|
|
|
|
A bit disappointed with my Mach 1 / What am I missing?
Henry Kwok
I have taken my second hand Mach1GTO (7 year old) out for the last two nights first time since I bought it in July and taken it back home half way across the globe to New Zealand. I am a bit sad to say I am a little disappointed by the guiding performance. Don't get me wrong, I think its performance is still better than my old Atlas, but it is just not as good as I expect it to be. I am not sure if my expectation is too high. Having said that, being a new mount to me I suspect it is more of user/setup error rather than with the mount per se. I would appreciate if some advice can be given on areas I should check to get better performance out of the mount. Setup: Mach1GTO OTA is 6" RC Guiding is with OAG using a Lodestar Mk1 Reducer is AP CCDT67 Focal length is 1050 mm or thereabout at f/7 ish Control is via PHD2, SGPro, AP ASCOM driver Before the Mach1GTO, I have an NEQ6 (Atlas), I get consistent 5 minute subs and can get 10 minute sub with about 25% loss due to guiding error. RMS error has reported by PHD2 with my Atlas is about 0.7-1.1". Some of this is due to the constant poor seeing in Auckland, NZ due to the coastal unpredictable weather, and some of it is the mount as one part of the sky is better than another. I upgraded to the Mach1GTO in the hope of achieving longer subs as I wish to get into narrowband imaging. On the first night I did a quick polar alignment with PoleMaster double side taped to the mount housing. I have not had good result with PoleMaster but I wanted a quick test so thats what I used. I get guiding rms error better than my Atlas at about 0.7-0.9" rms. However looking at the guide graph there are many guide corrections - similar to what I got with my Atlas. I got good 5 minute subs, but at 10 minutes there is some minor egging of stars and at 20 minutes the stars are obviously oblong. At the end of the night the guiding deteriorated so I did a test of my polar alignment and noted significant DEC drift of 40 arc min, so I put it down to poor PA. On the second night I spent some time drift aligning using PHD2 tool. Both Azimuth and Altitude axis reported less than 1 arc min error. However, guiding graph shows similar pattern with lots of corrections. The RMS error gets down to 0.4" and up to 0.7/8" so it is well within the pixel scale of 1 arc sec / pixel of my setup. 5 min sub is good; 10 min sub is acceptable but very slightly egged if I pixel-peep and 15 minute sub gives me "trianglular stars" (no, the optic is not pinched, stars are round at 5 minutes). I have gone through my usual set up routine as before. I have balanced as well as I could. Could not really set East-Heavy as I simply could not tell, but I understand it does not matter with AP mount. Everything is bolted tight. There is no cable drag... So in summary the Mach1GTO can achieve what I had with my Atlas but it does not seem to enable me get longer subs. Where should I be looking to get better performance? - Could the mount need adjustment since it has travelled from San Francisco to San Diego by UPS then by commercial flight back to NZ? If so how can I tell if it needs adjustment? PHD2 reported a DEC backlash of 600 ms whatever that means - which is miles better than my Atlas by the way. - Better balancing with a fish scale? - Better polar alignment (will have to be software assisted, as I am in Southern Hemisphere)? - Non mount related issue? Many thanks! Henry
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC PRO Beta 1.5.0.10 pointing correction keeping me 33 arcmin off target??
davidh4433
Ray,
Confirming you have fixed the pointing problem with Pointing Correction active in v1.5.0.12. Thanks! DavidH
|
|
|
|
APCC new public beta 1.5.0.12 available now
APCC users:
The newest version 1.5.0.12 is available now. We encourage all who are using the public beta version to update: http://www.astro-physics.com/tech_support/apcc/apcc-install.htm
Changes in the new version: Version 1.5.0.12 – 08/30/16 (Public Beta) · APCC - Added check box to stop tracking after unparking. · APCC - Changed confusing custom park Alt/Az boxes to labels. · APCC - Changed look of a number of labels to be more consistent. · APCC - Added status labels for Meridian Limits, Horizon Limits, Pointing and Tracking rate correction (Tooltip info is presented when mouse hovers over them).
Version 1.5.0.11 – 08/25/16 (Private Beta) · APCC - Fixed incorrect time zone when unparking · APCC - Fixed meridian delay getting cleared when slewing with meridian limits disabled.
More version history http://www.astro-physics.com/tech_support/apcc/apcc-version-history.pdf
Thank you all for the feedback along the way.
Clear Skies,
Marj Christen Astro-Physics, Inc 11250 Forest Hills Rd Machesney Park, IL 61115 Phone: 815-282-1513 Fax: 815-282-9847 www.astro-physics.com
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC PRO Beta 1.5.0.10 pointing correction keeping me 33 arcmin off target??
Sean Curry <sxcurry@...>
Same experience here, with AP1100, encoders, CP3, APCC 1.5.0.10 - poor pointing again last night, even after fixing Site issue from before. An APPM Plate Solve and Recal improved things, but the pointing was still not accurate. Prior to the upgrade, APCC and 50 point model worked perfectly. I will try the 1.5.0.12 release from last night ASAP. Thanks Ray for working on this. Sean
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:16 AM, pnelson@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC PRO Beta 1.5.0.10 pointing correction keeping me 33 arcmin off target??
PeterN
Hi Ray, Howard.
I have my mount calibrated, but there is still an issue with pointing updates being on in APCC. Two nights ago I did a new pointing model. Tonight I slewed to a star east of the meridian and high altitude. I had the pointing updates off. The star was not on the chip but Pin Point in MaxIM was able to plate solve. I turned on convert syncs to recals in the driver, then did a sync in MaxIm. Before the sync the target star and where the scope was pointing in The Sky were not coincident, but after the sync there were coincident. I turned off convert syncs to recall in the driver. Just to be sure, I did a sync and real in APPM. I ran scheduler with pointing updates on and the first target was 6 arc' off. ACP did a reslew but the image centre was the same as before, so the reslew did not recenter. I used APPM to do a plate solve and recal. I then turned pointing updates OFF and re-ran Scheduler. Now the targets were close to centre and scheduler ran perfectly. I didn't get a chance to run a check on the recent mapping run as clouds came again. So at the moment with my set up (AP1600 with encoders, CP4, latest driver, APCC 1.5.0.10) scheduler does not find targets with pointing updates on in APCC. However, it finds targets with pointing updates turned OFF. After the clouds came in I installed APCC 1.5.0.12. This will have to wait for a clear night. Best Peter
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC/APPM limits PlateSolve with ReCal to 5deg error??
Lee,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
This was put in 1.5.x to help prevent users from accidentally doing a "bad" recal. You can disable it in APCC's advanced settings. Uncheck "Prevent Errant RECALs". -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro: http://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: http://www.gralak.com/apdriver Author of PulseGuide: http://www.pulseguide.com Author of Sigma: http://www.gralak.com/sigma
-----Original Message-----
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
Hi Craig/George/Lee,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I am glad pointing is working again for you guys. I will work on updating the documentation for the user interface changes over the next few evenings. There are also a couple other features I have not quite finished implementing yet, both in APCC and APPM. Those will be rolled in out in the next couple builds. -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro: http://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: http://www.gralak.com/apdriver Author of PulseGuide: http://www.pulseguide.com Author of Sigma: http://www.gralak.com/sigma
-----Original Message-----
|
|
|
|
APCC/APPM limits PlateSolve with ReCal to 5deg error??
Lee
hi Ray -- not major but any particular reason ReCal is not allowed from APCC (or APPM) if the plate solve shows an error more than 5 deg? i “lost” the scope pretty badly tonight and it took awhile to get back within reason. with the aid of video on the remote scope i was able to eyeball it back to “near” park 1 and cycle the power to get going again. the result of a plate solve when pointing to a selected star was an error of about 7.5 deg. when i tried to ReCal i kept getting errors from APCC because i was more than 5deg away -- and it would not allow the ReCal.
i worked around it by using the “GoToReCal to RA/Dec” panel to “lie” to APCC and tell it to incrementally ReCal with RA/Dec coordinates sequentially closer and closer to the true plate solved values — so that each incremental ReCal was within 5deg from previous. that worked, but why limit the value change to 5deg. i suppose if the values were vastly different then at least an “are you sure” would be in order but 5 deg “off” does not seem like a very big error to not permit the ReCal (i may be slow but it took me awhile to figure out how to work around it doing incremental "fake" ReCals :-) Lee
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
Lee
running an APC session now with pointing correction enabled in APCC ... objects on target so far (very encouraging)
thanks! lee
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
georayi@...
Ray,
My problem with APCC and ASCOM reporting incorrect coordinates after unparking also appears to be resolved. Thanks. George
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
Craig Anderson
Ray,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I was having a pointing problem similar to the other descriptions, and after installing the updated Pro beta below my setup is working properly again. Before I installed the latest beta of the Pro version: * Closed loop slews in TSX worked perfectly, but * Precision slews from CCD Autopilot failed, leaving my target several arc minutes from centered After installing the latest beta of the Pro version: * Closed loop slews in TSX still work perfectly, and * Precision slews from CCD Autopilot are working again I didn’t have to do anything in APCC Pro other than install the new version. No resync, no sync, no other changes. It just worked again after installing the latest. -Craig
|
|
|
|
APCC v1.5.0.12 - Pro and Standard
Given the number of people with issues, I am making a new build available early. The documentation has not been updated, but I think it should solve the pointing problems some people have been having.
Pro: http://www.apastrosoftware.com/apcc_download/APCC_Pro_Setup_Beta_1.5.0.12.exe Standard: http://www.apastrosoftware.com/apcc_download/APCC_Standard_Setup_Beta_1.5.0.12.exe Some of the changes: APCC - Added check box to stop tracking after unparking. APCC - Changed confusing custom park Alt/Az boxes to labels. APCC - Changed look of a number of labels to be more consistent. APCC - Added status labels for Meridian Limits, Horizon Limits, Pointing and Tracking rate correction (Tooltip info is presented when mouse hovers over them). -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro: http://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: http://www.gralak.com/apdriver Author of PulseGuide: http://www.pulseguide.com Author of Sigma: http://www.gralak.com/sigma
|
|
|
|
Re: APCC PRO Beta 1.5.0.10 pointing correction keeping me 33 arcmin off target??
Hi David,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Unfortunately, I have little time to look at logs, but 1.5.0.6 has a problem with pointing on the first slew in some cases. 1.5.0.10 had a problem with Time zone settings. Both are beta versions, so bugs are to be expected, but neither had any changes made to the pointing model algorithms compared with 1.0.3.4. That's not saying something else couldn't be the problem, but I'm going to say the same as I said to others... perform a verify run on your pointing model. Before doing that, I suggest you do what Howard said... try a plate solve and recal within APPM. Then try your slews from within TheSky. -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro: http://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: http://www.gralak.com/apdriver Author of PulseGuide: http://www.pulseguide.com Author of Sigma: http://www.gralak.com/sigma
-----Original Message-----
|
|
|