Date   

Re: Dumb question about APPM

Dean Jacobsen
 

Thanks for the pointers Ray.   I will definitely use the horizon limits feature.
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Re: Dumb question about APPM

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Dean,

 

> So, for the purpose of collecting measurement points, is there any need to set the Min. Altitude to anything less than

> 45 degrees or maybe 40 degrees?

 

No, there isn't.

 

> With the Min. Altitude selector set to 40 degrees, the medium map default points are significantly less than with the

> selector off [57 vs. 155].

 

You can increase the density of either RA or Dec points by changing the "Declination Spacing" and "Right Ascension Spacing" sliders. You can create quite dense models very easily by decreasing the spacing of either of these.

> The only exception to my usual practice is where I am imaging high in the north where I may start objects 1/2 hour

> earlier than 45 degrees altitude.

 

If you create Horizon limits in APCC, APPM can use them if you enabled the "Use APPCC Horizon Limits".

 

Below is a screen shot with these items highlighted. Notice in the map that I have elected to use my Horizon limits so APPM requires both the Min Altitude (31 degrees in this case), and the horizon limits to define points.

 

 

-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 Dean Jacobsen

> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 8:13 AM

> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io

> Subject: [ap-gto] Dumb question about APPM

>

> I'm reading the APCC/APPM manual and setting up the software for a trip out to the observatory next week where I

> will try to get pointing and tracking correction enabled on the Mach2 for the first time.

>

> I was wondering about settings in the measurement points tab of APPM...

>

> Because of light pollution domes to the east and the west, I only start imaging when my object is at least 45 degrees

> high in the eastern sky and I never follow the object below 45 degrees altitude in the western sky.

>

> So, for the purpose of collecting measurement points, is there any need to set the Min. Altitude to anything less than

> 45 degrees or maybe 40 degrees?

>

> With the Min. Altitude selector set to 40 degrees, the medium map default points are significantly less than with the

> selector off [57 vs. 155].

>

> The only exception to my usual practice is where I am imaging high in the north where I may start objects 1/2 hour

> earlier than 45 degrees altitude.

> --

> Dean Jacobsen

> http://astrophoto.net/wp/  <http://astrophoto.net/wp/>

> Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/

> Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/  <https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/>


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Sébastien Doré
 

Focal length has nothing to do with how long to do unguided. Unguided depends on how well your model is made and how much drift you are willing to accept in your image. 

Rolando, I'm not sure I'm getting this right. I'm probably missing something about the modeling part here... Please enlighten me.

I thought the "amount of drift I'm willing to accept" was the amount of recorded signal (pixels) that is "offset" in the frame due to the mount's (in)ability to accurately track an object,(isn't it why we usually guide ?) which is also related to the image scale, which in turn relates to the focal length of the telescope...

So I'm not sure how two scopes with different focal lengths would lead to the same amount of drift in an unguided sub of the same exposure time (all other parameters being equal). Seems to me that the more focal length, the more drift (pixel offsets over time) I get, wether it's caused by PE (which I understand is not an issue with AE) or bad PA.

Sorry if my question seems silly, I'm a kind of "advanced newbie in astrophotography" as I like to call myself... 😉


Regards,

Sebastien


Dumb question about APPM

Dean Jacobsen
 

I'm reading the APCC/APPM manual and setting up the software for a trip out to the observatory next week where I will try to get pointing and tracking correction enabled on the Mach2 for the first time.

I was wondering about settings in the measurement points tab of APPM...

Because of light pollution domes to the east and the west, I only start imaging when my object is at least 45 degrees high in the eastern sky and I never follow the object below 45 degrees altitude in the western sky.

So, for the purpose of collecting measurement points, is there any need to set the Min. Altitude to anything less than 45 degrees or maybe 40 degrees?

With the Min. Altitude selector set to 40 degrees, the medium map default points are significantly less than with the selector off [57 vs. 155].

The only exception to my usual practice is where I am imaging high in the north where I may start objects 1/2 hour earlier than 45 degrees altitude.
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Re: APCC Pro Documentation

 

You can use this link to get it:

http://www.apastrosoftware.com/apcc_download/APCC_Pro_Setup_1.8.3.1.exe

I had to take a guess at it, but the similarity to the 1.8.2.1 version address worked.

Jerome


Re: APCC Standard v1.8.2.0 and APCC Pro v1.8.2.1

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi Ray,
   Perhaps there is another mechanism to check for updates within APCC that doesn't use any .net protocols. For example, from my experience, PEMPro always alerts me when there are available updates.

cytan

On Friday, June 5, 2020, 10:28:51 PM CDT, Jerome Allison <jallison@...> wrote:


Hi Ray,

I'm glad you're still updating APCC, but I wish you would announce the new versions here or anywhere. 

From another user's problem, I happened to find out today that there is a new 1.8.3.1 version.  

Along with others, my install of APCC never alerts to a new version.  All I ever get is:

"You are running this version of APCC: 1.8.2.1"    (whatever version it might be)
           "The latest version of APCC is:"
                       (BLANK LINE)
                         "OK" button

I hope you will try to inform those of us in this situation.

Jerome


Re: APCC Standard v1.8.2.0 and APCC Pro v1.8.2.1

 

Hi Ray,

I'm glad you're still updating APCC, but I wish you would announce the new versions here or anywhere. 

From another user's problem, I happened to find out today that there is a new 1.8.3.1 version.  

Along with others, my install of APCC never alerts to a new version.  All I ever get is:

"You are running this version of APCC: 1.8.2.1"    (whatever version it might be)
           "The latest version of APCC is:"
                       (BLANK LINE)
                         "OK" button

I hope you will try to inform those of us in this situation.

Jerome


Re: Mount is "lost"

Michael Hamburg
 

Thanks to all who replied with their experiences. Weather permitting, I will give PHD2's drift align function to get PA.
Michael 


Re: Mount is "lost"

Leszek
 

The nice part about AP900 and Mach2 is the fact that you can order the polemaster with the AP adaper that allows you to screw it in directly into the mount (picture from AP web site)


APCC Pro Documentation

M Hambrick
 

I downloaded the latest version of APCC Pro (1.8.2.1) from the web site along with the help file, but I see several posts on the forum refering to version 1.8.3.1. Will the newer version be made available from the web site soon ?


Re: Mount is "lost"

Peter Nagy
 

I also use Sharp Cap Pro with PoleMaster. The software just could not be any easier!!!!!

https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/PoleMaster-on-A-P1100GTO/

My mount is the first run of A-P1100GTO. The two placeholder bolts were part of the motor gear box. Newer mounts do not have placeholder bolts anymore.

Peter


Re: Mount is "lost"

 

I'm already not going back to the polemaster app!

the main problem i found with polemaster is that it's just not that accurate. around 30 arcsec but with my main camera/ota and sharpcap i can usually get 5-10arcsec

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:47 PM Leszek <leszek@...> wrote:
A word of caution though.  Once you try sharpcap with polemaster you will never go back to the QHY polemaster app. :)  I only use the polemaster app on my android phone if I'm in a remote location without my computer.



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

J. Belden
 

Exactly what I expected.  Like the difference between a real Rolex watch vs a knockoff, you can see the micro stepping if you look close enough.

Joe


Re: Mount is "lost"

Bill Long
 

I have only used SharpCap Pro via my main imaging camera, but it does work exceptionally well. Here is a snip of the model properties from APCC on the last model I built using the 1100AE with nothing more than SharpCap Pro alignment. 




From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Leszek <leszek@...>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 12:47 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount is "lost"
 
A word of caution though.  Once you try sharpcap with polemaster you will never go back to the QHY polemaster app. :)  I only use the polemaster app on my android phone if I'm in a remote location without my computer.


Re: Mount is "lost"

Leszek
 

A word of caution though.  Once you try sharpcap with polemaster you will never go back to the QHY polemaster app. :)  I only use the polemaster app on my android phone if I'm in a remote location without my computer.


Re: Mount is "lost"

 

>>> BTW polemaster will work with sharpcap's polar alignment and that's what I use for my AP900.  It literally takes less than 3 min to be polar aligned with polemaster/sharpcap combo.

interesting!

i will have to try that out.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:00 PM Leszek <leszek@...> wrote:
+1 for polemaster.  BTW polemaster will work with sharpcap's polar alignment and that's what I use for my AP900.  It literally takes less than 3 min to be polar aligned with polemaster/sharpcap combo.



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: Mount is "lost"

Leszek
 

+1 for polemaster.  BTW polemaster will work with sharpcap's polar alignment and that's what I use for my AP900.  It literally takes less than 3 min to be polar aligned with polemaster/sharpcap combo.


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Roland Christen
 

About 90% of that drift rate is due to polar misalignment. Normally one would want to polar align a mount to have a Dec drift of 1 arc-sec per 5 minutes, or better.
The whole idea was to see in the extreme what the tracking accuracy could be with a simple model. Obviously you would not want to set up a mount this poorly to do imaging. A good polar scope alone could get you 10 times closer to the pole.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Valente <bvalente@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Any idea how much of that drift rate is due to polar misalignment vs other sources of RA drift (atmosphere, etc.)

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:43 AM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

just wondering up to how much focal length would the Mach2 be suitable unguided.
Focal length has nothing to do with how long to do unguided. Unguided depends on how well your model is made and how much drift you are willing to accept in your image. In the image that I posted the drift rate was approximately 5 arc sec per hour. Each 10 minute exposure had approximately 0.67 arc sec of drift, more or less. After stacking, the resulting stars had a value of .065 for flatness in MaximDL (see attachment below). Some of the exposures had more, some had less, and I simply stacked them all with Median Combine.

5 arc sec per hour might seem high, but the setup I used was purposely offset from the pole and had very high drift rate. Before modeling the RA drift was measured at 48 arc-sec/hr and the Dec was 96 arc-sec/hour. I would expect that one could get modeling down to +- 1 arc-sec/hour with good polar alignment.

Roland





-----Original Message-----
From: Seb@stro <sebastiendore1@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Interesting! Thanks for the 101 course on mount design tradeoffs Rolando.

Just wondering up to how much focal length would the Mach2 be suitable unguided. Do you think it would do it at say 1400mm FL (8in Edge+FR)? What about 2000mm (no reducer)?
Any feedback from the lucky folks that already got their hands on the Mach2?

Sebastien


--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Bill Long
 

The mirror on the SCT is usually the problem, or so I am told by those that have tested it out. I dont use SCT's. RC mirrors dont move though (neither do CDK mirrors) so those would be more suited to unguided imaging.

I shot unguided at 1720mm on the 1100 with AE and it worked wonderfully. I would not hesitate to do the same on the Mach 2 if I had one. That was on a iDK from AG Optical.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Seb@stro <sebastiendore1@...>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 9:45 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 
Hi Bill,

Not sure how an RC would be that much easier than an SCT unguided. Could you elaborate ? Are you talking about focusing, mirror flop, thermal equilibrium issues, else ? Note that I'm not familiar at all with RCs. 

That said, Rolando is getting pretty impressive unguided results with its 160EDF F/7 which I suppose at 1120mm FL since its " just the 160 refractor straight to the 8300 chip". 

Which makes me wondering if a 1400mm scope would be within reach of the Mach2 unguided in the first place.

Sebastien



De : main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> de la part de Bill Long <bill@...>
Envoyé : 5 juin 2020 11:24
À : main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Objet : Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 
Unguided imaging with SCT's is a big challenge, unrelated to the mount. A similar sized RC would have no issues.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Seb@stro <sebastiendore1@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:40 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 

Interesting! Thanks for the 101 course on mount design tradeoffs Rolando.

Just wondering up to how much focal length would the Mach2 be suitable unguided. Do you think it would do it at say 1400mm FL (8in Edge+FR)? What about 2000mm (no reducer)?

Any feedback from the lucky folks that already got their hands on the Mach2?

Sebastien



Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Sébastien Doré
 

Hi Bill,

Not sure how an RC would be that much easier than an SCT unguided. Could you elaborate ? Are you talking about focusing, mirror flop, thermal equilibrium issues, else ? Note that I'm not familiar at all with RCs. 

That said, Rolando is getting pretty impressive unguided results with its 160EDF F/7 which I suppose at 1120mm FL since its " just the 160 refractor straight to the 8300 chip". 

Which makes me wondering if a 1400mm scope would be within reach of the Mach2 unguided in the first place.

Sebastien



De : main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> de la part de Bill Long <bill@...>
Envoyé : 5 juin 2020 11:24
À : main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Objet : Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 
Unguided imaging with SCT's is a big challenge, unrelated to the mount. A similar sized RC would have no issues.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Seb@stro <sebastiendore1@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:40 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 

Interesting! Thanks for the 101 course on mount design tradeoffs Rolando.

Just wondering up to how much focal length would the Mach2 be suitable unguided. Do you think it would do it at say 1400mm FL (8in Edge+FR)? What about 2000mm (no reducer)?

Any feedback from the lucky folks that already got their hands on the Mach2?

Sebastien


16061 - 16080 of 86940