Date   

Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

 

i've been following your SX and PHD discussions, and yes that is completely frustrating. hopefully that can get resolved and you will be back to your oag soon


On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:22 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
Thanks, Brian

I think between your response and that of Roland's, I will stick with the integrated OAG system.  In fact, I need to move the new MIDI version as I need 2" filters for my new ASI2600MC Pro.  Hoping to test things again Sunday night when it should be clear but it just doesn't;t make sense why this just stopped working.  I checked cables, 2- cameras, etc and both mount and guide camera connect but no stars on the PHD2 view- just snow but my images are fine.  I'll try to get a clear star view from the capture software using the guide camera and se what happens.  If I do, I should see it in the PHD2 view screen and it should calibrate but will see what happens. 
  

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
I think i have the same oag/filter wheel as you, and it does eventually work

what is your imaging resolution? 

re: unguided, I think it can work quite effectively, particularly with a quality mount like AP

in my experience (with losmandy not AP) ability to do unguided really boils down to excellent polar alignment, good periodic error correction, and generally good imaging "hygiene" (avoid cable snags, things are tightened down well, etc.). 

i was able to get 5 min unguided exposures @ around 1.1 arcsec/pix. not earth shattering but not too shabby

Personally i found setting up OAG to be easier than figuring out unguided. With unguided, there are so many small fiddly things you really have to nail down, and they can shift a bit every night, so i had to be constantly diligent. with AP there are less fiddly things related to the mount which will make your life a little easier

I encourage you to try it, but also a bit of caution that you will be inheriting other types of challenges.



On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:58 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
Hi Brian

The idea is to do unguiding.  I can do about 60s now but would prefer to do 120s unguided.  

Weather bad now so I am at a standstill at the moment.  The mount connects with PHD2 but no focus achieved, so no calibration.  I have no idea why.  Anyway, I agree that once the guide cam is in focus, it should remain that way but at times things seem to shift with the integrated OAG/filter wheel setup that I have.  I like it in that it is one piece of hardware vs two but for whatever reason(s), I seem to have to readjust things once in a while despite nothing shifting or moving.  That is why I want to at least explore this option which may not be a better way.




On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Hi Bruce

this is more from a PHD perspective (and also i know you've had some posts at SX forum)

Is your idea that you want to do unguided imaging vs. guided?

It seems you have an issue that is unresolved and you are still looking for the root cause, but once it's solved, you would not be refocusing your camera at all. just gotta figure out what's causing it

Brian

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce



--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: CP4 Sharing?

Dominique Durand
 

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:15 PM, George wrote:

Dominique,

 

In that case, you will be in excellent shape.   It is a good plan.   You should have a lot of fun.

 

Regards,

 

George


Thanks George,

This is the good plan that I am considering, but while waiting for this passage from CP3 to CP4 for the Mach1 I am bored of still not being able to try my Mach2 yet

Regards.

Dominique

 


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

Bruce Donzanti
 

Thanks, Brian

I think between your response and that of Roland's, I will stick with the integrated OAG system.  In fact, I need to move the new MIDI version as I need 2" filters for my new ASI2600MC Pro.  Hoping to test things again Sunday night when it should be clear but it just doesn't;t make sense why this just stopped working.  I checked cables, 2- cameras, etc and both mount and guide camera connect but no stars on the PHD2 view- just snow but my images are fine.  I'll try to get a clear star view from the capture software using the guide camera and se what happens.  If I do, I should see it in the PHD2 view screen and it should calibrate but will see what happens. 
  

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
I think i have the same oag/filter wheel as you, and it does eventually work

what is your imaging resolution? 

re: unguided, I think it can work quite effectively, particularly with a quality mount like AP

in my experience (with losmandy not AP) ability to do unguided really boils down to excellent polar alignment, good periodic error correction, and generally good imaging "hygiene" (avoid cable snags, things are tightened down well, etc.). 

i was able to get 5 min unguided exposures @ around 1.1 arcsec/pix. not earth shattering but not too shabby

Personally i found setting up OAG to be easier than figuring out unguided. With unguided, there are so many small fiddly things you really have to nail down, and they can shift a bit every night, so i had to be constantly diligent. with AP there are less fiddly things related to the mount which will make your life a little easier

I encourage you to try it, but also a bit of caution that you will be inheriting other types of challenges.



On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:58 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
Hi Brian

The idea is to do unguiding.  I can do about 60s now but would prefer to do 120s unguided.  

Weather bad now so I am at a standstill at the moment.  The mount connects with PHD2 but no focus achieved, so no calibration.  I have no idea why.  Anyway, I agree that once the guide cam is in focus, it should remain that way but at times things seem to shift with the integrated OAG/filter wheel setup that I have.  I like it in that it is one piece of hardware vs two but for whatever reason(s), I seem to have to readjust things once in a while despite nothing shifting or moving.  That is why I want to at least explore this option which may not be a better way.




On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Hi Bruce

this is more from a PHD perspective (and also i know you've had some posts at SX forum)

Is your idea that you want to do unguided imaging vs. guided?

It seems you have an issue that is unresolved and you are still looking for the root cause, but once it's solved, you would not be refocusing your camera at all. just gotta figure out what's causing it

Brian

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce



--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: CP4 Sharing?

George
 

Dominique,

 

In that case, you will be in excellent shape.   It is a good plan.   You should have a lot of fun.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-282-1513

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dominique Durand via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:11 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] CP4 Sharing?

 

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:02 PM, George wrote:

Dominique,

 

“Swap” implies that you want to go back and forth repeatedly.   That you cannot do without losing the PE each time.

 

If you want to make a onetime move of the CP4 to the other mount, you can certainly do that.   However, you will need to make a new PE once you’ve changed mounts.   After that, you’ll be fine…unless you change the CP4 back. 

      Regards,

 

 George

Hi George,

To be more precise, I will have my Mach2 / CP5 in my observatory which will not move and my Mach1 for mobile use. On the mach1 I want to replace the CP3 with a CP4 and upgrade the keyboard to benefit from the new correction routines and ultimately have a Mach1 / CP4.

Regards

Dominique

 


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

Bruce Donzanti
 

OK- that answers that question.  I'll fix my OAG issue and carry on.

Thanks much

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:06 AM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I have used a pointing model at my observatory which has a 175 F8 refractor. I find that for imaging up to 20 minutes the model does just fine but my mount has encoders and essentially zero periodic error. For a non-encoder mount you might be more limited in time to perhaps 10 minutes unless you have excellent periodic error corrections.

The main problem with SCT scopes is mirror flop which cannot be modeled since it is a random error. Using a separate guide scope again limits the exposure time because of mirror flop which causes differential pointing errors between the two scopes (differential flex). The only way to assure proper imaging with SCTs at their native focal length is off-axis guiding.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2020 9:37 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

 

I think i have the same oag/filter wheel as you, and it does eventually work

what is your imaging resolution? 

re: unguided, I think it can work quite effectively, particularly with a quality mount like AP

in my experience (with losmandy not AP) ability to do unguided really boils down to excellent polar alignment, good periodic error correction, and generally good imaging "hygiene" (avoid cable snags, things are tightened down well, etc.). 

i was able to get 5 min unguided exposures @ around 1.1 arcsec/pix. not earth shattering but not too shabby

Personally i found setting up OAG to be easier than figuring out unguided. With unguided, there are so many small fiddly things you really have to nail down, and they can shift a bit every night, so i had to be constantly diligent. with AP there are less fiddly things related to the mount which will make your life a little easier

I encourage you to try it, but also a bit of caution that you will be inheriting other types of challenges.



On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:58 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
Hi Brian

The idea is to do unguiding.  I can do about 60s now but would prefer to do 120s unguided.  

Weather bad now so I am at a standstill at the moment.  The mount connects with PHD2 but no focus achieved, so no calibration.  I have no idea why.  Anyway, I agree that once the guide cam is in focus, it should remain that way but at times things seem to shift with the integrated OAG/filter wheel setup that I have.  I like it in that it is one piece of hardware vs two but for whatever reason(s), I seem to have to readjust things once in a while despite nothing shifting or moving.  That is why I want to at least explore this option which may not be a better way.




On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Hi Bruce

this is more from a PHD perspective (and also i know you've had some posts at SX forum)

Is your idea that you want to do unguided imaging vs. guided?

It seems you have an issue that is unresolved and you are still looking for the root cause, but once it's solved, you would not be refocusing your camera at all. just gotta figure out what's causing it

Brian

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce



--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: CP4 Sharing?

Dominique Durand
 

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:02 PM, George wrote:

Dominique,

 

“Swap” implies that you want to go back and forth repeatedly.   That you cannot do without losing the PE each time.

 

If you want to make a onetime move of the CP4 to the other mount, you can certainly do that.   However, you will need to make a new PE once you’ve changed mounts.   After that, you’ll be fine…unless you change the CP4 back. 

      Regards,

 

 George

Hi George,

To be more precise, I will have my Mach2 / CP5 in my observatory which will not move and my Mach1 for mobile use. On the mach1 I want to replace the CP3 with a CP4 and upgrade the keyboard to benefit from the new correction routines and ultimately have a Mach1 / CP4.

Regards

Dominique

 


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

Roland Christen
 

I have used a pointing model at my observatory which has a 175 F8 refractor. I find that for imaging up to 20 minutes the model does just fine but my mount has encoders and essentially zero periodic error. For a non-encoder mount you might be more limited in time to perhaps 10 minutes unless you have excellent periodic error corrections.

The main problem with SCT scopes is mirror flop which cannot be modeled since it is a random error. Using a separate guide scope again limits the exposure time because of mirror flop which causes differential pointing errors between the two scopes (differential flex). The only way to assure proper imaging with SCTs at their native focal length is off-axis guiding.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2020 9:37 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

Bruce Donzanti
 

Hi Brian

The idea is to do unguiding.  I can do about 60s now but would prefer to do 120s unguided.  

Weather bad now so I am at a standstill at the moment.  The mount connects with PHD2 but no focus achieved, so no calibration.  I have no idea why.  Anyway, I agree that once the guide cam is in focus, it should remain that way but at times things seem to shift with the integrated OAG/filter wheel setup that I have.  I like it in that it is one piece of hardware vs two but for whatever reason(s), I seem to have to readjust things once in a while despite nothing shifting or moving.  That is why I want to at least explore this option which may not be a better way.




On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Hi Bruce

this is more from a PHD perspective (and also i know you've had some posts at SX forum)

Is your idea that you want to do unguided imaging vs. guided?

It seems you have an issue that is unresolved and you are still looking for the root cause, but once it's solved, you would not be refocusing your camera at all. just gotta figure out what's causing it

Brian

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

 

Hi Bruce

this is more from a PHD perspective (and also i know you've had some posts at SX forum)

Is your idea that you want to do unguided imaging vs. guided?

It seems you have an issue that is unresolved and you are still looking for the root cause, but once it's solved, you would not be refocusing your camera at all. just gotta figure out what's causing it

Brian

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Pointing Model vs. OAG with PHD2

Bruce Donzanti
 

I would feedback from those doing pointing models if would be advantageous for me to try it based on my specific setup on stick with OAG.

I am in a permanent observatory above my garage roof which is about 12 feet above street level. In the observatory, my C11" EdgeHD (with an 80mm piggybacked onto it) is on an AP1100 which is on top of a Pier Tech adjustable steel pier (can be raised 18 inches).  The steel pier lies on top of a cement pier that runs down below street level.  So, the scope itself is about 8 ft above the observatory floor, requiring me to use safety ladder to get to it but just about everything is automated now with few exceptions. My setup is well built, has excellent polar alignment and cable management.  I would have to recheck my PE on my 1.5 year old AP1100.  For guiding, I have been using PHD2 with an OAG for about 2 years but I find it to be finicky and I often have to get up on the ladder to re-focus the guide camera (one of the few non-automated steps).  Seeing and transparency in my area is generally not very good and I do not get many clear nights.  Typically, my seeing is around below average/average with many nights of poor and few above average/excellent. I am thinking of using the 80mm as the guide scope for the C11 since it has an autofocuser but I am still dealing with PHD2 and my so-so skies. 

With this as an introduction, would taking the time to learn to build a pointing model save me a lot of aggravation (i.e.,up and own on the ladder for the OAG adjustments or using the less effective 80mm) in the long run or am I just exchanging one set of problems for potential another set?  Would a pointing model be more or less advantageous for guiding in my sky conditions or just the same as using an OAG approach?

Bruce


Re: CP4 Sharing?

George
 

Dominique,

 

“Swap” implies that you want to go back and forth repeatedly.   That you cannot do without losing the PE each time.

 

If you want to make a onetime move of the CP4 to the other mount, you can certainly do that.   However, you will need to make a new PE once you’ve changed mounts.   After that, you’ll be fine…unless you change the CP4 back.  

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-282-1513

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dominique Durand via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 2:31 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] CP4 Sharing?

 

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:41 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:

You can always swap keypads (hand controllers). Nothing will be upset. Swapping keypads is like swapping planetarium programs.

 

What you cannot do is swap CP controllers. Those are dedicated to each mount and they have the proper settings for controlling each mount's servo motors. These settings are different and unique to each mount.

 

Rolando


Hi Rolando,

That leaves me in doubt. On another post I thought I understood that on my Mach1 from 2011 I could replace my CP3 controller with a CP4 and either reload on the EP curve already redone with PEMPro and store on the PC, or repeat the EP measurement again with PEMPro . But I saw on the manuals some mechanical differences between the versions Mach1 / CP3 of 2010-2011 and the Mach1 / CP4 of 2014. Do you configure the CP4 controllers according to the mounts to be piloted and therefore it is enough for you provide the serial number of the frame to be fitted when ordering?

Regards
Dominique

 

 

 

 


Re: M86 and Markarian's Chain #Absolute_Encoders

steven ho
 

Thank you for all you kind comments. No disrespect taken for Jim's postings. I love all ya'll. Stay safe and be well.

Clear skies!!
Steve Hoffman


Re: CP4 Sharing?

Dominique Durand
 

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:41 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
You can always swap keypads (hand controllers). Nothing will be upset. Swapping keypads is like swapping planetarium programs.
 
What you cannot do is swap CP controllers. Those are dedicated to each mount and they have the proper settings for controlling each mount's servo motors. These settings are different and unique to each mount.
 
Rolando

Hi Rolando,

That leaves me in doubt. On another post I thought I understood that on my Mach1 from 2011 I could replace my CP3 controller with a CP4 and either reload on the EP curve already redone with PEMPro and store on the PC, or repeat the EP measurement again with PEMPro . But I saw on the manuals some mechanical differences between the versions Mach1 / CP3 of 2010-2011 and the Mach1 / CP4 of 2014. Do you configure the CP4 controllers according to the mounts to be piloted and therefore it is enough for you provide the serial number of the frame to be fitted when ordering?

Regards
Dominique
 

 
 


Re: AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

Mike Shade
 

OK, thanks...will try that and see how it goes.

 

Mike J. Shade

Mike J. Shade Photography:

mshadephotography.com

 

In War: Resolution

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Goodwill

Sir Winston Churchill

Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights.

Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west.  Can it be half

a year since I watched her April rising in the east?  Low in the southwest

Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall...

Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights

 

International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:38 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

 

With my 17" astrograph and 1600 mount I have used .02sec mostly. Max move is .5 sec.

 

Rolando

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Shade <mshade@q.com>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 5:46 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

Have a first generation 1600GTO/Planewave CDK 17/SBIG STL6303E camera, permanent observatory setup.  Guiding with the internal guider on the camera, ST237 chip.  Main imaging scale .63"/pixel unbinned, guider binned 3X3, guiding at 1X sidereal.

 

Curious as to what folks have found to be a useful minimum move setting in Maxim for guiding (I'm still using V5.18) with a 1600?

 

Using ASCOM to guide, not the guider relays.  ACP runs the whole show. 

 

Looking for what folks have found to be a starting point.  Seeing here tends to run about 2", sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse.

 

Thanks...

 

Mike J. Shade

Mike J. Shade Photography:

mshadephotography.com

 

In War: Resolution

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Goodwill

Sir Winston Churchill

Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights.

Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west.  Can it be half

a year since I watched her April rising in the east?  Low in the southwest

Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall...

Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights

 

International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org


Re: AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

Roland Christen
 

With my 17" astrograph and 1600 mount I have used .02sec mostly. Max move is .5 sec.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Shade <mshade@q.com>
To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 5:46 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

Have a first generation 1600GTO/Planewave CDK 17/SBIG STL6303E camera, permanent observatory setup.  Guiding with the internal guider on the camera, ST237 chip.  Main imaging scale .63"/pixel unbinned, guider binned 3X3, guiding at 1X sidereal.
 
Curious as to what folks have found to be a useful minimum move setting in Maxim for guiding (I'm still using V5.18) with a 1600?
 
Using ASCOM to guide, not the guider relays.  ACP runs the whole show. 
 
Looking for what folks have found to be a starting point.  Seeing here tends to run about 2", sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse.
 
Thanks...
 
Mike J. Shade
Mike J. Shade Photography:
 
In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Goodwill
Sir Winston Churchill
Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights.
Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west.  Can it be half
a year since I watched her April rising in the east?  Low in the southwest
Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall...
Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights
 
International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org


Re: Ascom v5.30.10 ??

Ray Gralak
 

Has anyone heard of this version of Ascom? (v.10)?
Yes, it exists. I posted a link to it a few days ago in another thread but I haven't had a chance to update my website yet.

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Steven Steven
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:59 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] Ascom v5.30.10 ??

Has anyone heard of this version of Ascom? (v.10)?

S


AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?

Mike Shade
 

Have a first generation 1600GTO/Planewave CDK 17/SBIG STL6303E camera, permanent observatory setup.  Guiding with the internal guider on the camera, ST237 chip.  Main imaging scale .63"/pixel unbinned, guider binned 3X3, guiding at 1X sidereal.

 

Curious as to what folks have found to be a useful minimum move setting in Maxim for guiding (I'm still using V5.18) with a 1600?

 

Using ASCOM to guide, not the guider relays.  ACP runs the whole show. 

 

Looking for what folks have found to be a starting point.  Seeing here tends to run about 2", sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse.

 

Thanks...

 

Mike J. Shade

Mike J. Shade Photography:

mshadephotography.com

 

In War: Resolution

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Goodwill

Sir Winston Churchill

Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights.

Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west.  Can it be half

a year since I watched her April rising in the east?  Low in the southwest

Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall...

Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights

 

International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org


Re: Ascom v5.30.10 ??

David
 

No.  Current version is 6.4sp1.  See:   https://www.ascom-standards.org/




On Apr 22, 2020, at 4:58 PM, Steven Steven <steven447@...> wrote:

Has anyone heard of this version of Ascom? (v.10)?

S


Ascom v5.30.10 ??

Steven
 

Has anyone heard of this version of Ascom? (v.10)?

S

12501 - 12520 of 82326