Mojo

For ANSVR, the most important factor is setting the field of view.  For other solvers, like ASTAP, there are other factors, but I use ANSVR almost exclusively; although ASTAP may be faster.  Search the forum for ASTAP or plate solve.

Here is my entry in the Additional Solve-field arguments      --no-plots --scale-low 40 --scale-high 90 --scale-units arcminwidth


Bryan

Thanks Ray, that's a point, but in fact I may not know my image scale exactly. I can get a number from successful plate solves. Maybe that actually is exact enough. The measurement from PEMPro using star trails has a little uncertainty to it.

I understand that a "Bad X scale" is a sanity check for a "successful" plate solve that is most likely wrong.

Right now I'm getting different success rates from the local ANSRV server and the online Astronomy.net version. I haven't yet tried using the online instance for collecting a point model, so that will be my next test. The failed solves that are not "Bad X scale" are all timeouts. I'm attributing that to an under-performing field laptop.

As I see it, the main trade-off between local solves and online solves is the bandwidth and transmission time required to upload the images to the server. In my case it might be offset by the lousy compute performance of my local machine. My net connection from near home will be a cell phone hot spot, and from my desert location it's WiFi to satellite internet (I think).

Does anyone have suggestions that might make the local plate solver more viable on busy fields? I haven't had much luck using settings to reduce the number of objects processed -- in fact it seems to fail more quickly.

Best regards,
Mojo

--

Stuart
http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/

Good morning,

Using my Mach1 and APCC-Pro/APPM I took this image over four nights without guiding.  I used a Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 and modified Nikon D800e to collect about 7.5 hours of sub images.   The ability to image without guiding is amazing.  Thanks to all the folks at A-P for making such nice instruments!

https://www.astrobin.com/tjqwtm/0/

Joe

Thanks Bryan! I think I'll bump my tolerance by a percent and see what happens. :)

Morris, raising the tolerance might be okay if you don't know image scale exactly, but not if the image scale is already known.

When you see "Bad X-scale" that means even though the plate solve was successful, the image scale (and RA/Dec coordinates) were probably wrong. That is, it was a bad solution and should not be included in the model.

-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 Mojo Jones
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2020 10:44 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Bad X scale?

Thanks Bryan! I think I'll bump my tolerance by a percent and see what happens. :)


On 7/11/2020 10:17 PM, Worsel via groups.io wrote:


Mojo

https://ap-gto.groups.io/g/main/message/71258

Bryan



--
Morris Jones, Monrovia, CA
BridgeMojo <http://bridgemojo.com>
Old Town Sidewalk Astronomers <http://otastro.org>
Mojo's Blog <http://mojo.whiteoaks.com>

Terri, Eckhard.
I am glad to hear your comments it.
Thank you.
Jian Yuan Peng

Thanks Terri.
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 

Thanks Bryan! I think I'll bump my tolerance by a percent and see what happens. :)

Mojo

https://ap-gto.groups.io/g/main/message/71258

Bryan

After having good luck with APPM, the Mach1, and the Traveler, I've moved on this week to trying it with the 1100GTO and AP180.

The longer focal length and long moment arms certainly make it less forgiving.

I'm doing a small point map of 23 points. I'm accustomed to them all succeeding with the Mach1/Traveler.

This is my second night to make a point map with the AP180/1100GTO, and two plates failed with a timeout. I'm wondering if these might be explained by being dense Milky Way points, while trying to solve on a somewhat slow and old PC. I'm using the ANSRV local astronomy.net solver.

But two other points didn't exactly "fail," that is, they weren't logged as having failed by APPM. But they did record "Bad X Scale" in the point log, and left yellow in the point diagram, and had no RA/Dec deltas.

I'm still getting pretty good results with pointing and tracking.

Mojo

No lose wires that I can see.


- Mikko

OK, plugged the RA to Dec (cannot plug Dec to RA as it’s too short) and nothing happens. When I open the gearbox cover I see the gears turning about 180 degrees and that’s all.


Mikko

That is really beautiful Jian Yuan. 

Great shot Dean. 

T

I already tried the second Y cable which I ordered. I can’t believe the cable is the issue unless the brand new Y cable is faulty also. 

- Mikko