Date   

Re: Planetarium software

Roland Christen
 


there are things like closed-loop slews (as TSX terms it, others just call it centering) that will fix any post-slew pointing error.
Just want to remind those who use MaximDL. They have an easy centering routine that I use when framing an image. Instead of doing a plate solve and centering an object, sometimes I want to frame the object away from the center for composition purposes. In MaximDL you simply point to the place in the image that you want centered (Point Here), and the mount automatically centers on that position. There may be nothing there to plate solve on, but you can center your image anywhere you want.

MaximDL also has plate solve with centering, but I never bother with it.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Ghent <daleg@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Planetarium software

Correct me if I'm wrong, but T-Point will not give you tracking modeling when using it with a non-SB mount, correct? Point modeling doesn't really amount to much in astrophotography when there are things like closed-loop slews (as TSX terms it, others just call it centering) that will fix any post-slew pointing error. You do want tracking modeling, however, and s far as I'm aware, only APCC+APPM will give you that with A-P mounts.

I'm a contributor to NINA so it's obvious where my personal preferences lay and what my likely suggestion is going to be. But whatever you choose to use, I *highly* *highly* suggest using APCC+APPM over T-Point now that you've moved over to Astro-Physics hardware. The good news is that you ought to have two licenses for APCC Pro if you purchased your two mounts new from A-P or one of their dealers.


> On Jun 2, 2021, at 13:41, Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Linwood, good thoughts. I currently have TSX with camera add on and Tpoint add on, and I agree with your thought that PHD2 is a better autoguider.
>







--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: counter weight shaft

Roland Christen
 

That is similar to the way all our shafts are made now.

Roland


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin von Poschinger <KPoschinger@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 3:05 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] counter weight shaft

Hello,
I told a while back, that I will post a image of the counter weight adapter, that I have made. With this part I have no more trouble to mount the shaft. The diameter is 25.54mm. On my AP1600 I had a lo0t o trouble with the assembling. The gears were „zergniddelt“ as we say here in Germany. ;-))
It took me sometiome minutes to assemble.

Greetings

Konstantin



Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
0171 1983476


--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Planetarium software

Dale Ghent
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but T-Point will not give you tracking modeling when using it with a non-SB mount, correct? Point modeling doesn't really amount to much in astrophotography when there are things like closed-loop slews (as TSX terms it, others just call it centering) that will fix any post-slew pointing error. You do want tracking modeling, however, and s far as I'm aware, only APCC+APPM will give you that with A-P mounts.

I'm a contributor to NINA so it's obvious where my personal preferences lay and what my likely suggestion is going to be. But whatever you choose to use, I *highly* *highly* suggest using APCC+APPM over T-Point now that you've moved over to Astro-Physics hardware. The good news is that you ought to have two licenses for APCC Pro if you purchased your two mounts new from A-P or one of their dealers.

On Jun 2, 2021, at 13:41, Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@brightfeathers.com> wrote:

Thanks Linwood, good thoughts. I currently have TSX with camera add on and Tpoint add on, and I agree with your thought that PHD2 is a better autoguider.


Re: Back Focus Troubles #Absolute_Encoders

Sébastien Doré
 

I always wondered what the impact would be on these systems when a Crayford focuser is used and the primary mirror is locked at a specific focus position, effectively swapping the variable and fixed portions of the optical chain. 

I too had that question on my mind for quite some time for the EdgeHDs (I own the C8). 

From my readings, my understanding at this point is that with a crayford-type focuser in the optical chain, the backfocus spacing from the last optical element still needs to be pretty accurate (to < 1 mm) to optimize the field flatness over the entire sensor area / illumination circle. 

Hence, with a crayford on these scopes, the focus point needs to be pre-set with the primary mirror focuser prior to locking the clutches and should then only be fine-tuned by the crayford (auto)focuser to microns precision. The backfocus spacing tolerance for field flatness being an order of magnitude or so greater than that of focus point, field flatness should not, in theory, be impacted (much) by the change in backfocus spacing from the crayford reaching the focus point.

But as I said, this is my understanding only. If someone has a better explanation, I'm very interested in hearing it too.

Sébastien


Re: counter weight shaft

dvjbaja
 

Great idea!  



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Konstantin von Poschinger <KPoschinger@...>
Date: 6/2/21 1:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] counter weight shaft

Hello,
I told a while back, that I will post a image of the counter weight adapter, that I have made. With this part I have no more trouble to mount the shaft. The diameter is 25.54mm. On my AP1600 I had a lo0t o trouble with the assembling. The gears were „zergniddelt“ as we say here in Germany. ;-))
It took me sometiome minutes to assemble.

Greetings

Konstantin



Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
0171 1983476


counter weight shaft

Konstantin von Poschinger
 

Hello,
I told a while back, that I will post a image of the counter weight adapter, that I have made. With this part I have no more trouble to mount the shaft. The diameter is 25.54mm. On my AP1600 I had a lo0t o trouble with the assembling. The gears were „zergniddelt“ as we say here in Germany. ;-))
It took me sometiome minutes to assemble.

Greetings

Konstantin



Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
0171 1983476


Re: Planetarium software

Andrea Lucchetti
 

Shailesh,
That’s quite interesting.
With the PMX you can use direct guide in skyx.
As you probably know the setting are very different from normal guiding but when done usually works very well. I used to ha e a Tec 140 with FF @1016mm, and in 10 years I’ve never had a guiding issue. But I am happy you found an alternative that works for you. Andrea 


Re: Planetarium software

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Hi Andrea,

My experience is positive for camera addon and Tpoint addon, but autoguiding is a bit hit or miss at higher focal lengths; for example when I use it with Astrodon MMOAG on my TEC 180FL at 1134mm focal length, even if I find several stars and with perfect polar alignment of my PMX on a permanent pier, the autoguiding performance was suboptimal and the star would be lost often. When I switched to PHD2, I got consistently better star shapes, with no star lost issue, and hence better overall images.

Shailesh


Re: Back Focus Troubles #Absolute_Encoders

Andrew J
 

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 08:11 AM, ap@... wrote:
the majority of what the external focuser on the SCT is doing is restoring the same focus length (and so same back focus length), not so much changing it.
ap,

Thank you for that explanation. Using a focuser to correct or compensate for these changes makes sense in a standard SCT without any correcting elements in the light path. Moving the Primary Mirror or moving camera sensor should have the same net result.

I think this becomes more complicated when using an Edge HD system due to the glass correcting element in the baffle or adding the .07x focal reducer. 146.05mm is a very specific number. I always wondered what the impact would be on these systems when a Crayford focuser is used and the primary mirror is locked at a specific focus position, effectively swapping the variable and fixed portions of the optical chain. It is not something i necessarily need an answer to as I no longer own and Edge HD, but just curious. 

Andrew


Re: Will the Mach 2 support .....

Luca Marinelli
 

Roland,

I don’t know if you can charge gain in Maxim DL but you can certainly change the gain of the ASI6200MC in the ASCOM driver. Modern image acquisition software (NINA, Voyager, SGP) will also allow you to change the gain dynamically (per filter, per target, or whatever you want). 

If Maxim DL is a 32bit application, it will likely suffer greatly from the large files produced by these small pixel, full-frame cameras. That was the case with Sequence Generator Pro before they released a 64 bit version and now there are no data issues.

Luca

On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


No model in APCC.

Roland



-----Original Message-----
From: Khushrow Machhi via groups.io <kmachhi@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Will the Mach 2 support .....

Hi Roland,

Prior to this guiding run do you have a model built in APCC?  

Khushrow

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Planetarium software

Andrea Lucchetti
 

My experience with skyx and camera addon it is very positive. I use it with ccdautopilot for automation. It worked well with the paramount and it works perfectly with the mach2.  Skyx has also one of the best solver in my opinion. Andrea


Re: Planetarium software

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Thanks Linwood, good thoughts. I currently have TSX with camera add on and Tpoint add on, and I agree with your thought that PHD2 is a better autoguider.


Re: Planetarium software

ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

>Hi Dale,

>Thanks for reading my post. My goal is to use a planetarium app primarily for astrophotography with a path to automation and occasional light viewing. 

I’m not Dale, but will offer 2 cents as a TSX user.  TSX is an unusual package, in some ways, in that it is Planetarium, camera control, guider, and session manager wrapped up in one.  There are some others of these, mostly older software.

 

Perhaps because it is a bit of everything, it is not the best at any one.  In my mind, PHD2 for example is a better guiding program, with a lot more flexibility.

 

I find it better to build up a collection of best-of-breed tools and use them for what they do.  For me a planetarium software is mostly to identify targets I may want to image, find rise/transit/set time, altitude, etc. I then use a session manager (NINA) to actually execute what I plan, as it handles meridian flip (something TSX doesn’t do at all), coordinates flips and dithering with exposure, can do multiple targets in sequence based on time or altitude or exposure counts, etc.  So my planetary software at most feeds a coordinate set to NINA, then it is done.  (NINA has a limited set of planetarium features to help with framing/rotation as well as rise/set/transit times).

 

I’m not pushing NINA (though I like it), there are others like that – Voyager for example, or the venerable APT.

 

Personally I like Stellarium as a planetarium software but to me that’s mostly a function of screen appearance and one’s subjective taste – once you decided it is just a planning tool, it is easier to pick Planetarium based on UI and appearances more so than mount integration.  In fact, I do not even tie Stellarium to my mount (though it can).

 

The ability to plug and play different tools for different purposes is one success story in the otherwise pretty fractured astrophotography ecosystem, which can’t agree on much of anything else, from thread size to terminology to how to measure backfocus.  Pick the best of each, rather than a compromise that does it all.

 

Linwood

 


Re: Back Focus Troubles #Absolute_Encoders

Andrew J
 

Update: I mentioned in my original post that I hand contacted a Telescope and Eyepiece manufacture and got two different answers to the following scenario.

 

Assume there was correcting element that moves with the focuser that requires 50mm of fixed back focus and the imaging chain had a camera and filter wheel (with no filters) with a physical length of 25mm. In this configuration a 25mm spacer would be required to achieve back focus. If a 3m thick filter that adds 1mm of back focus is installed in the filter wheel, what would be the length of the spacer needed to achieve the correct back focus?

 

One person told me 24mm, another said 26mm.

 

This discrepancy is what led me to post the question here. I am happy to report that the person who told me 24mm tracked me down today and changed their answer to 26mm. They explained that adding the filter to the optical path increased the total back focus of the system. Introducing the filter increases the total back focus of the correcting element from 50mm to 51mm. Therefore the length of the spacer required to achieve the correct back focus for this scenario would be 26mm (50mm native BF + 1mm BF from filter – 25mm physical length of other components = 26mm spacer). I have to say, I was really impressed that the company would take the effort to contact me to correct their mistake. This is a rare thing.

 

This correction helped validate my initial thinking that adding a filter that adds 1mm of back focus changes the total back focus of the system as the starting point for the spacer calculation, before subtracting the physical distance of other components in the imaging chain. It is easy to get this backwards and add the 1mm to the components that are subtracted from the native back focus of the correcting element. This is the mistake the person made who said I would need a 24mm spacer.

 

I found this explanation helpful so thought I would pass it along. It also demonstrates how easy it is to make a mistake that would lead to a 2mm error in the calculation.

 

If adapters are ordered 1 – 2mm shorter than required and shims are used to achieve the correct back focus as described in Dale’s post then this mistake is easy to correct. If adaptors are ordered to the exact calculated length as I use to do, this can be a cost mistake to correct. After talking to the person yesterday who told me 24mm, I thought I was going to have to order a bunch of new adapters because I had ordered them to exact length and if what he told me was correct, it meant that all my adapters were 2mm to long. Thankfully, it appears I might be OK if I ignore the tolerances. Ordering them shorter than needed is definitely the way I plan to go in the future.

 

I hope this was useful.

 

Andrew


Re: Planetarium software

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Hi Dale,

Thanks for reading my post. My goal is to use a planetarium app primarily for astrophotography with a path to automation and occasional light viewing. 

Shailesh


RA stuck at a certain point on AP 1600

Kenneth Tan
 

I am using the mount controlled by the ASI air pro. On the left side the RA goes all the way on the right R A goes to a point and then reverses. Any idea why? I do not use the hand controller sp completely controlled by the ASI pro


RA stuck at a certain point on AP 1600

Kenneth Tan
 

I am using the mount controlled by the ASI air pro. On the left side the RA goes all the way on the right R A goes to a point and then reverses. Any idea why? I do not use the hand controller sp completely controlled by the ASI pro


Re: Will the Mach 2 support .....

Roland Christen
 

No model in APCC.

Roland



-----Original Message-----
From: Khushrow Machhi via groups.io <kmachhi@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Will the Mach 2 support .....

Hi Roland,

Prior to this guiding run do you have a model built in APCC?  

Khushrow

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Will the Mach 2 support .....

Khushrow Machhi
 

Hi Roland,

Prior to this guiding run do you have a model built in APCC?  

Khushrow


Re: Planetarium software

Dale Ghent
 

Hi Shailesh,

It's note really clear as to what your goals are. Is it to use a planetarium app to drive the mount around the sky for visual and occasional light astrophotography use, or are you looking for something that's primarily for automated astrophotography that can also lean on a planetarium app for target coordinates and such?

On May 27, 2021, at 19:07, Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@brightfeathers.com> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Does anyone have a recommendation? The Sky X vs Maxim DL?

I used to have a Paramount MX (PMX) which I have sold in lieu of AP1100 with AE and a soon expected Mach2.

I used The Sky X with camera addon and Tpoint on my PMX, but now that I do not have this mount, I am inclined to help the PMX buyer transfer the TSX license. I would like to know what the good folks here use on AP mounts with or without APCC.

Options I am considering

1. Continue TSX with Tpoint + camera add on or use the imaging edition from Bisque
2. Use MaximDL, but not sure if it is as good as TSX. I especially liked the "closed-loop slew" in TSX; I don't know if Maxim DL has the equivalent of closed-loop slew, and if the planetarium sw of Maxim DL as good. I have heard of auto meridian flips of MDL and multi-star auto-guiding, plus integration with ACP.

Thoughts?

Shailesh

4221 - 4240 of 83093