Date   

Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Karen Christen
 

Hello Dominique,

 

Let me rephrase:

The APCC version you have now will continue to operate, forever, for free. 

 

If your license is more than one year old and you choose to renew now, you will receive the latest version (1.9x) today, and your new license date will be August 18, 2021.  In addition, you can download all other upgrades, features, and enhancement for the next 365 days (until Aug 17, 2022) without any additional charges.  As an example, if we were to release v1.10 on May 10, 2022, you would be able download that version for free.  After Aug 17, 2022, your APCC software will continue working normally – it will not stop!!  The version you have on that date will continue to operate, forever, for free.

 

After Aug 17, 2022, if we release another major upgrade with new (or significantly enhanced) features, you can decide to purchase another one-year subscription and receive the new software features.  OR, you can decide you like the version you have and continue using it, forever, for free.

 

You do not have to pay every year.  You ONLY pay when:

  • Your current license is more than one year old

AND

  • There is a new version available

AND

  • You want features available in the new version.

 

Is that helpful?

Karen

AP

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dominique
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:39 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

 

Hi Karen,
You say things about your 2 answers which are slightly contradictory.
On the one hand, that for APCC it does not work like a Saas.
 "We have not charged any fees whatsoever, in the last 5 years, or any other time. However, we do feel that some of the new features in v1.9x are worth a fee for folks whose license is more than one year old. Regarding your characterization of this as a SaaS model, I respectfully disagree. SaaS programs cease to operate if you don't pay a recurring fee, which is not the case for APCC. "

and on the other hand that for the new functionalities it is the case.

"If your license is more than one year old and you choose to renew now, you will receive all upgrades, features, and enhancement for the next 365 days. But there is no requirement to renew again in a year. You can wait until another version of APCC is released with features you want, which may be a few years away, depending on how you use your equipment and what features are valuable to you. "

I can not imagine an astronut with a setup working perfectly well with NINA and ASTAP say after 365 days ... I stop.
I therefore persist in the idea that it is quite normal to pay for new features and even many minor evolutions that improve the software to participate in development, but that to pay them at this price every year does not seem not reasonable.
As I said I have already bought the standard version which I no longer use (Used 2 years) and I use the pro version supplied with the APMach2 but therefore with the price included in principle. If I had to upgrade the standard version to the pro version ($ 250) I would have done it and therefore participate in the development in this way, that's normal.

Dominique


--
Karen Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

Dominique
 

Hi,
Seeking to know if the option of the 4 new functionalities is worth it for me and more particularly this one, the question that you ask Dean interests me too. I have a little trouble understanding why, while using an AllSky model, checking the option on APCC would be more effective in a given sector than elsewhere, without being told what to do with it. acts.
I think that some clarification on this operation would not harm, because for me it is witchcraft.

Dominique


Re: Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

Dean Jacobsen
 

Yes, it appears that that is all it takes.  Couldn't be any simpler.

I was initially wondering if there was another set or type of APPM data that needed to be acquired to implement the feature.
--
Dean Jacobsen
Astrobin Image Gallery - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/


Re: Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

 

Dean just to answer your question here:

>>>How do I implement this new feature other than setting the check box?

After making your model you just check the box. you don't need to do anything else 

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:09 PM Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Dean,

 

In a nutshell:

 

The all-sky models produce a tracking rate derived from the best-fit pointing terms across all its data points. However, it is possible that the equipment has some un-modeled pointing characteristics. If so, then the tracking rate will not account for those un-modeled characteristics.

 

The declination-arc model is designed specifically for calculating tracking rates inclusive of any un-modeled characteristics. It does this by measuring the changes in pointing error along the declination arcs like in your screenshot. The more values in each arc the better the tracking rate modeling will be. Tracking rates are interpolated between declination arcs so the entire region encompassed by the sky data points is covered.

 

Some notes about this:

1)    Dec-Arc Tracking is only used for tracking rate calculations. The all-sky model, which is also calculated by APCC, still handles pointing.

2)    Tracking rate correction only works within the area in which sky points are measured. When outside that area APCC uses the all-sky tracking rate model. The All-Sky model will also extrapolate outside of the sky data points that were collected.

 

BTW, when I mention “All-Sky” model above, I mean one of the four model combinations: East/West, Counterweight Up/Down.

 

-Ray

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dean Jacobsen
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:06 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

 

Hi All,

I am interested in hearing how the new Dec-Arc feature in v1.9 works.

I set up my mount for each session.  I always know my object in advance of setup so I then run an abbreviated model which contains about 3 or 4 lines which bracket the declination of my object for the night.

This has been working great for me for about a year now at focal lengths of 380mm and 540mm.

The image below is an example of how I would set up a modeling run for an object at +60 degrees decination:



I have looked in the on line help file for APCC Pro and APPM and only see mention of the Dec-Arc feature in the "New Features" section.

So, my question is:  How do I implement this new feature other than setting the check box?  Does the Dec-Arc feature still require a "standard" APPM modeling run such as what I have been doing above?  Lastly, if I have already performed a APPM mapping run, then how will the Dec-Arc feature benefit me?

Thanks in advance for the help.

--
Dean Jacobsen
Astrobin Image Gallery - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

Dean Jacobsen
 

Thanks Ray. 

So, there needs to be a APPM data acquisition and then APCC applies the data as is usual for a tracking rate model.  The Dec-Arc Tracking is another layer of precision on top of the APCC tracking model that I have been using... right?

In the example that I have provided above, are the APPM settings - 3 degree declination spacing and 9 degree RA spacing - good enough for a good Dec-Arc Tracking result for a target at +60 degrees declination?  ... or should I tighten up the spacing up a little?

I suspect I am going to hear "it depends".  :-)  Perhaps longer focal lengths will require closer spacing. The spacing I am using now works great for unguided images of up to 240 sec. at 380mm and 540mm.

--
Dean Jacobsen
Astrobin Image Gallery - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/


Re: APCC Pro 1.9.0.1 installation bug.

Dominique
 

Hi Ray,
Thank you very much by removing the protection I was able to install.
I had never had this type of problem with this dll., Probably an evolution of the protection on my antivirus. I put the Dll in the control exclusions so that it works without problems on the next version.
Regards
Dominique


Re: [FAQ] Using NINA with Astro-Physics mounts

Steven Panish
 

Dale,
Thanks for all your work and wisdom!
Steve

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:09 PM Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:
That is actually different as of this week. Sbig native support is in

> On Aug 17, 2021, at 22:18, Dan Richey <dr.richey@...> wrote:
>
> I see that NINA does not support SBIG cameras.
>
> Dan Richey
>
>
>
>
>







Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Dominique
 

Hi Karen,
You say things about your 2 answers which are slightly contradictory.
On the one hand, that for APCC it does not work like a Saas.
 "We have not charged any fees whatsoever, in the last 5 years, or any other time. However, we do feel that some of the new features in v1.9x are worth a fee for folks whose license is more than one year old. Regarding your characterization of this as a SaaS model, I respectfully disagree. SaaS programs cease to operate if you don't pay a recurring fee, which is not the case for APCC. "

and on the other hand that for the new functionalities it is the case.

"If your license is more than one year old and you choose to renew now, you will receive all upgrades, features, and enhancement for the next 365 days. But there is no requirement to renew again in a year. You can wait until another version of APCC is released with features you want, which may be a few years away, depending on how you use your equipment and what features are valuable to you. "

I can not imagine an astronut with a setup working perfectly well with NINA and ASTAP say after 365 days ... I stop.
I therefore persist in the idea that it is quite normal to pay for new features and even many minor evolutions that improve the software to participate in development, but that to pay them at this price every year does not seem not reasonable.
As I said I have already bought the standard version which I no longer use (Used 2 years) and I use the pro version supplied with the APMach2 but therefore with the price included in principle. If I had to upgrade the standard version to the pro version ($ 250) I would have done it and therefore participate in the development in this way, that's normal.

Dominique


Re: #APCC Pro 1.9 w/ASTAP platesolve test always fails #APCC

Sébastien Doré
 

You found a subtle bug. :-) Try renaming the filename's extension from ".fits" to ".fit".
Yep, that did it. 

BTW, is there a place (other than through this forum) to report issues re APPC/APPM (or even enhancement requests) that we could come across or is this the correct place to ask ?

I'm asking because e.g. I also have some issues with the 3D viewer in APCC (mount position when parked is "drifting") but maybe it is only specific to my system (or my bad understanding of what is "calibration with the night sky"). Obviously, this isn't a show stopper either, but it would indeed be nice to have that feature working as expected for me.

Sébastien


Re: Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Dean,

 

In a nutshell:

 

The all-sky models produce a tracking rate derived from the best-fit pointing terms across all its data points. However, it is possible that the equipment has some un-modeled pointing characteristics. If so, then the tracking rate will not account for those un-modeled characteristics.

 

The declination-arc model is designed specifically for calculating tracking rates inclusive of any un-modeled characteristics. It does this by measuring the changes in pointing error along the declination arcs like in your screenshot. The more values in each arc the better the tracking rate modeling will be. Tracking rates are interpolated between declination arcs so the entire region encompassed by the sky data points is covered.

 

Some notes about this:

1)    Dec-Arc Tracking is only used for tracking rate calculations. The all-sky model, which is also calculated by APCC, still handles pointing.

2)    Tracking rate correction only works within the area in which sky points are measured. When outside that area APCC uses the all-sky tracking rate model. The All-Sky model will also extrapolate outside of the sky data points that were collected.

 

BTW, when I mention “All-Sky” model above, I mean one of the four model combinations: East/West, Counterweight Up/Down.

 

-Ray

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dean Jacobsen
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:06 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] Dec-Arc Tracking in APCC Pro v1.9 - an explainer please?

 

Hi All,

I am interested in hearing how the new Dec-Arc feature in v1.9 works.

I set up my mount for each session.  I always know my object in advance of setup so I then run an abbreviated model which contains about 3 or 4 lines which bracket the declination of my object for the night.

This has been working great for me for about a year now at focal lengths of 380mm and 540mm.

The image below is an example of how I would set up a modeling run for an object at +60 degrees decination:



I have looked in the on line help file for APCC Pro and APPM and only see mention of the Dec-Arc feature in the "New Features" section.

So, my question is:  How do I implement this new feature other than setting the check box?  Does the Dec-Arc feature still require a "standard" APPM modeling run such as what I have been doing above?  Lastly, if I have already performed a APPM mapping run, then how will the Dec-Arc feature benefit me?

Thanks in advance for the help.

--
Dean Jacobsen
Astrobin Image Gallery - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/


Re: Ugghhh cross threaded CW shaft into CW shaft adapter with metal threaded sleeve

Christopher Erickson
 

Heavy, dark sulphur cutting oils are cheap. Break-Free CLP is not.
 
"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


Virus-free. www.avg.com


On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 9:47 AM M Hambrick <mhambrick563@...> wrote:
Hi Chris

That sounds really interesting about CLP being a good cutting oil. I will definitely have to try it. I learned from the experienced machinists who ran the Bridgeport milling machines to use only the heavy, dark sulfur based cutting oil. It works great, but it's messy.

Mike


Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Ray Gralak
 

Looks good Mike!

You have the latest version, so it looks like there might not be a need to uninstall the old APCC version after all.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of M Hambrick
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:09 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Thanks Ray

I purchased my renewal license yesterday so it is dated 08/17/2021. The date for the previous license was in
2017. Here is what I see in the device manager:



Re: Ugghhh cross threaded CW shaft into CW shaft adapter with metal threaded sleeve

M Hambrick
 

Hi Chris

That sounds really interesting about CLP being a good cutting oil. I will definitely have to try it. I learned from the experienced machinists who ran the Bridgeport milling machines to use only the heavy, dark sulfur based cutting oil. It works great, but it's messy.

Mike


Re: #APCC Pro 1.9 w/ASTAP platesolve test always fails #APCC

Ray Gralak
 

"C:\Users\Seb4stro\Documents\Astro-Physics\APPM\2021-08-03_00-52-03__-
5.00_300.00s_0044.fits"
You found a subtle bug. :-) Try renaming the filename's extension from ".fits" to ".fit".

APPM expects the filename to have a three character extension, "fit", so it incorrectly constructed the name of the output file that
ASTAP creates with the plate solve results. Thus APPM failed because a results file with that name does not exist.

I will fix that in the next build.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Seb@stro
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:45 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] #APCC Pro 1.9 w/ASTAP platesolve test always fails

Using the command line thrown to ASTAP by APPM "Image link test button" and writing log to file shows that
(see below), in my case at least, image is solved correctly, even if reported otherwise by APPM.

_____________________________________

14:24:52 astap.exe -f "C:\Users\Seb4stro\Documents\Astro-Physics\APPM\2021-08-03_00-52-03__-
5.00_300.00s_0044.fits" -ra 21.128075 -spd 158.150972222222 -fov 1.49389562130178 -s 1000 -r 10 -log
14:24:53 Creating grayscale x 2 binning image for solving/star alignment.
14:24:54 1001 stars, 771 quads selected in the image. 669 database stars, 515 database quads required for
the square search field of 1.5°. Search window at 100% based on the number of quads. Step size at 100% of
image height
14:24:54 Using star database H18
14:24:54 147 of 150 quads selected matching within 0.007 tolerance. Solution["] x:=-1.470289*x+ -
0.035516*y+ 4104.879972, y:=-0.035497*x+ 1.470341*y+ -2601.327119
14:24:54 Solution found: 21: 08 08.6 +68° 13 36 Solved in 1.3 sec. Δ was 5.2'. Mount offset Δα=29.7", Δδ=-
4.3". Used stars up to magnitude: 14.5


Re: APCC Pro 1.9.0.1 installation bug.

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Dominique,

The installation of ApUtils.DLL has not changed in a long time, so that implies something local to your computer is causing it. In particular, the error message indicates there was an access error. The installer should elevate itself to administrator privileges, but you might try right-clicking the installer and selecting "Run as administrator".

If the access error persists that could mean that the DLL is in use or locked by your Anti-Virus program. So, make sure to shut down APCC completely and try temporarily shutting off your AV program during installation.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dominique
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 9:43 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.9.0.1 installation bug.

Hi,
I wanted to switch to APCC Pro 1.9.0.1 version.
To do this, uninstall my previous version 1.8.8.13 and I have an anomaly during the installation on the
APutils.dll.


Re: #APCC Pro 1.9 w/ASTAP platesolve test always fails #APCC

Sébastien Doré
 

Using the command line thrown to ASTAP by APPM "Image link test button" and writing log to file shows that (see below), in my case at least, image is solved correctly, even if reported otherwise by APPM.

_____________________________________

14:24:52  astap.exe  -f "C:\Users\Seb4stro\Documents\Astro-Physics\APPM\2021-08-03_00-52-03__-5.00_300.00s_0044.fits" -ra 21.128075 -spd 158.150972222222 -fov 1.49389562130178 -s 1000 -r 10 -log
14:24:53  Creating grayscale x 2 binning image for solving/star alignment.
14:24:54  1001 stars, 771 quads selected in the image. 669 database stars, 515 database quads required for the square search field of 1.5°. Search window at 100% based on the number of quads. Step size at 100% of image height
14:24:54  Using star database H18
14:24:54  147 of 150 quads selected matching within 0.007 tolerance.  Solution["] x:=-1.470289*x+ -0.035516*y+ 4104.879972,  y:=-0.035497*x+ 1.470341*y+ -2601.327119
14:24:54  Solution found: 21: 08 08.6 +68° 13 36 Solved in 1.3 sec. Δ was 5.2'. Mount offset Δα=29.7",  Δδ=-4.3". Used stars up to magnitude: 14.5


Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Karen Christen
 

Hello Dominique and Astro-Nuts,

 

It seems many people are very confused about the $100 subscription.  You are NOT REQUIRED to pay the subscription fee every year!  Subscription renewal is OPTIONAL.

 

You will want to renew – and pay the $100 – only in one of these circumstances:

  • Your current license is more than one year old AND you want the features available in a new version.

OR

  • You choose to support further software development.  Again, this is optional.

 

If your license is more than one year old and you choose to renew now, you will receive all upgrades, features, and enhancement for the next 365 days.  But there is no requirement to renew again in a year.  You can wait until another version of APCC is released with features you want, which may be a few years away, depending on how you use your equipment and what features are valuable to you. 

 

And to repeat – your current version of APCC will continue working forever, and you will always have access to bug fixes and minor updates for free.  We encourage you to update your software with these bug fixes/updates regularly to get the best performance. 

 

More questions?  We’re happy to answer them!

Karen

AP

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dominique
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 12:46 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Hi,
I am not against this change in pricing mode, but the level seems to me to be very high, especially since this is added, for us in europe, a good VAT (20%). Even if useful evolutions are linked to the general IT environment and to new third-party software, it seems to me that the most essential are due to the evolutions carried out for the AP mounts.
After 10 years with Astro-physics, 2 APmach1, including one sold to replace it with an APmach2, an AP130GT, a 92 Stowaway ... and in August 2018 an APCC-Std version for my 2nd Mach1 / CP4 that I have able to transfer to the buyer of the latter and the need to buy a plate resolution software to model with my Mach2, I find that it charges a bit much, since it amounts to buying a new version every 5 years.
When I also think that being little English-speaking, I took the time to translate the user manuals into French and made available, with your agreement, for the most part, on AstroSurf.
Of the 4 new features Dec-Arc Tracking currently seems the most useful for me ... so assuming I stay with my current setup it would cost me $ 100 per year !!! Here is why I say that the price seems a little high to me. The $ 100 for the upgrade with its new functionalities would seem more reasonable to me, or a much lower annual rate, because with the proposed pricing we can easily arrive at a form of annuity, on these last installed functionalities.

...Or I didn't quite understand what I could read so far because I just watched Karen's last answer

Regards

Dominique


--
Karen Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Ugghhh cross threaded CW shaft into CW shaft adapter with metal threaded sleeve

Christopher Erickson
 

My experience is that just about any lubricant will help with galling/cold welding to some degree. However also in my experience, lubricants containing ground Teflon work the best. My speculation is that the ground Teflon bits might be "packing up" in the feathering and preventing the two feathered surfaces from catching each other and locking in. Almost like the teeth of two opposing hacksaw blades engaging each other. Fill the teeth with something and the two blades are then able to slide past each other without catching.

Break-Free CLP is also the best threading and cutting oil I have ever found for use in my machine shop. Much better than any commercial cutting oil I have tried. Especially when cutting stainless or aluminum. Very interesting.

Somewhere I have some electron microscope pics of the surface of machined stainless and the feathering is very obvious.

Cast stainless steel has a completely different surface. I think Sturm Ruger figured out how to use precision ceramic molds and a centrifuge to precisely mold stainless steel without a feathered surface. 

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


Virus-free. www.avg.com


On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 2:08 AM Steve H <shoff535@...> wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for the detailed description of the interaction of threaded metal components, and lubricants.

I’m curious on what your thoughts and experiences are with silicone lubricants.

Thanks,
Steve H


Sent from Steve's iPhone

On Aug 17, 2021, at 1:41 PM, Christopher Erickson <christopher.k.erickson@...> wrote:


Take the counterweight shaft and stuck adapter to a friendly local machine shop.

Take the counterweight shaft and stuck adapter to a friendly local machine shop.

Take the counterweight shaft and stuck adapter to a friendly local machine shop.

Take the counterweight shaft and stuck adapter to a friendly local machine shop.

Take the counterweight shaft and stuck adapter to a friendly local machine shop.

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 4:02 AM Klwalsh2061 <kevin.walsh@...> wrote:

Odd size nuts? Maybe so. 

Try McMaster-Carr. They carry an extremely wide selection of hardware, including large SAE and Metric nuts and bolts. 


Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

Dominique
 
Edited

Hi,
I am not against this change in pricing mode, but the level seems to me to be very high, especially since this is added, for us in europe, a good VAT (20%). Even if useful evolutions are linked to the general IT environment and to new third-party software, it seems to me that the most essential are due to the evolutions carried out for the AP mounts.
After 10 years with Astro-physics, 2 APmach1, including one sold to replace it with an APmach2, an AP130GT, a 92 Stowaway ... and in August 2018 an APCC-Std version for my 2nd Mach1 / CP4 that I have able to transfer to the buyer of the latter and the need to buy a plate resolution software to model with my Mach2, I find that it charges a bit much, since it amounts to buying a new version every 5 years.
When I also think that being little English-speaking, I took the time to translate the user manuals into French and made available, with your agreement, for the most part, on AstroSurf.
Of the 4 new features Dec-Arc Tracking currently seems the most useful for me ... so assuming I stay with my current setup it would cost me $ 100 per year !!! Here is why I say that the price seems a little high to me. The $ 100 for the upgrade with its new functionalities would seem more reasonable to me, or a much lower annual rate, because with the proposed pricing we can easily arrive at a form of annuity, on these last installed functionalities.

...Or I didn't quite understand what I could read so far because I just watched Karen's last answer

Regards

Dominique


Re: APCC v1.9 and one-year renewal subscriptions #APCC

M Hambrick
 

Thanks Ray

I purchased my renewal license yesterday so it is dated 08/17/2021. The date for the previous license was in 2017. Here is what I see in the device manager:

8041 - 8060 of 88161