Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
Worsel
Besides GPS coords., MGBOX also provides T, P, and RH. APPC Pro uses this data for adjusting the APPM generated model
Bryan
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
Keith Olsen
I also have the MGBOX2 and APPC Pro does show the UTC time from the box. What I don't know for sure if APPC uses that time to update the computer system clock. It looks to me like it does because they are both timed exactly when I run APPC Pro. But I could be wrong about this.
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
MGBox V2 has ascom drivers for connecting to the device, including GPS the OP was talking about a need for getting PC time accurate, and while i love my MGBox v2, it's a lot more than a $18 GPS for the PC
FYI --
|
|
Re: APCC: RA limit reached while in Park 3?
#APCC
Glenn
Thank you, Howard, I’ll talk to you soon.
Kind regards, Glenn
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
I forgot to mention, that you should use the MGbox V2 ASCOM Local Server!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Konstantin
Konstantin v. Poschinger
Hammerichstr. 5 22605 Hamburg 040/8805747 0171 1983476
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
Worsel
FYI
I have an MGBOX2. APCC Pro accesses it directly, not through the MGBOX2 app, AND automatically. See GPS Tab, Connection section. Bryan
|
|
Re: APCC: RA limit reached while in Park 3?
#APCC
I'm sure this can be fixed quickly. Give me a call at AP and we'll get it figured out.
|
|
APCC: RA limit reached while in Park 3?
#APCC
Glenn
Greetings A-P family, Does anyone have an idea what might be going on? I’m sure it is a simple setting I have overlooked.
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
The MGBOX2 has its own software app. I am not positive of this, but I believe that this software cannot run simultaneously with a program like APCC. However, The MGBOX2 could be used at the start of a session to calibrate the computer system clock. Then, shut down the MGBOX2 software and start APCC. APCC will then be getting the same time source that was used for the PC.
|
|
Re: Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test
Bill Long
AG Optical 12.5" Truss iDK. Camera was a FLI PL16803, CFW5-7, NiteCrawler, etc.
All in all about 70lbs fully loaded OTA. 17" tall, 45" in length at critical focus.
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Ram <ramviswanathan@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:34 PM To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test Bill, what scope did you put on the mount?
Thanks for your report.
-Ram
On Oct 5, 2021, at 10:43 PM, Bill Long <bill@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test
Bill, what scope did you put on the mount?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for your report. -Ram
On Oct 5, 2021, at 10:43 PM, Bill Long <bill@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test
Bill Long
Hello again friends,
Quick update -- 10 Micron said no go on this load on the 1000 mount of theirs. While I will not copy and paste their entire response here (as some people seem to think that is poor form) they cited the mount would not be able to perform well under that load,
would be beyond its limit, and would overall suffer - especially unguided.
So, there you have it folks. AP not only stood by me in the load I wanted to try out -- but they are also one upping me with the 12" Mak system on the Mach 2.
Make of that, what you wish.
-Bill
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Bill Long <bill@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 8:50 PM To: AP-GTO Groups.io <ap-gto@groups.io> Subject: [ap-gto] Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test [Edited Message Follows]
Hello friends,
It was finally time to bring the mount and telescope inside. The weather has been very poor. Rainy and very high humidity as of late. I finally pulled in the gear. It sat outside from July 25 - October 2, with 104 pounds of counterweights, 70 pounds of scope
and accessories, with an OTA 17" in height, and 45" in length at critical focus. On the AP Mach 2 graph this is 5 pounds into the RED.
The rig operated at seeing limited tracking and guiding at all times during the 60 day onslaught. Not once was there ever a problem with the mount in terms of the load, or in terms of its inability to meet the demands I placed on it. I want everyone reading
this to be mindful that the mount sat for 2 months on a set of 2x4 piece of wood suspended 2 stories in the air (aka my deck). The deck is old, the wood is worn, and in some places there are holes in the deck. (I do plan to get it replaced next week with
some better material). I would not be wrong if I assumed other people are imaging in much better environments than I. Still, even in this environment the mount did exactly what it was asked to do. Be invisible.
I did get some series of mild winds, roughly 4-5MPH sustained, with some 10MPH gusts. The guide graph did show some response to those conditions, but the images were just as good as those without the wind. So, in mild conditions, 2 stories in the air, the system
seems to work fine, even under the incredible load I put it under and some, mild winds trying to encroach.
So, in the end I think this mount punches significantly higher than its class would dictate. I have no intentions of posting this same review on CN, as I think it would get drowned out by people fan-boying 10 Micron mounts. That is not really a discussion I
want to have, nor want to see unfold. Rather, I would prefer this to be a tale to my friends here, of how I took AP's new hot mount and put it up against the odds I did not think were possible for it. I would also prefer this to be the time where people sat
back saying, wow -- that is a remarkable achievement for AP. Especially considering the big bet they put on selling every mount with encoders. I think that was a wise decision, and I hope others with the mount agree.
In closing, I am more than happy with my purchase. But more importantly, I am happy that the mount Roland really wanted to be the next big thing -- is the next big thing. There is no other mount in its class that comes close to it. I believe it to be the shining
jewel of A-P engineering, and while the wait list might be long -- trust me -- it is well worth the wait.
-Bill
PS: I sent 10 micron a sales request asking if they would support the scope and stuff I used on the Mach 2, on their 1000 class mount (the Mach 2 competitor) once I hear back from them I will share it with you. I asked Roland the same question before I tested
this out, and he was confident the Mach 2 could do it. And, to no surprise, he was right!
🙂
|
|
Re: Is this tilt in the image train?
Tom Blahovici
11 months. That's nuts!
|
|
Re: Is this tilt in the image train?
Joseph Beyer
Looks great! Glad to see you've got it fixed and are ready to go. I got the CTU on my telescope and adjusted fairly well. Just like you I was surprised how little movement the camera needed to flatten the field. Now all I'm waiting on are clear skies.
|
|
Re: Is this tilt in the image train?
Andy Ermolli
Glad you got it sorted.
|
|
Re: Is this tilt in the image train?
Roland Christen
Great!
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Blahovici <tom.va2fsq@...> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 7:40 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Is this tilt in the image train? Well my first shot at this was pretty poor. I had very inconsistent results, that overshot what they should be been when I adjusted the tilt plate. They they went in the wrong direction! I finally got fed up and put everything back to flush with the scope.
I got to thinking though. It really was a very very slight adjustment to the tilt screws that was needed. I was also locking down the push pull screws quite a bit. So I though perhaps the tightening is distorting the actual situation. So I tightened up just the pull screws which put the tilt plates flush with the telescop and just slightly tightened the opposing screws. Result? My stars are perfect across the whole field. So what I though was tilt or miscollimation, turned out to be a distorted field due to overtightrning the adjustment screws. I'm back in business! -- Roland Christen Astro-Physics
|
|
Re: APPM + ASTAP - Inaccurate FOV
Sébastien Doré
Hi Ray,
it would be easy to include a checkbox in APPM's ASTAP config to exclude the -fov argument in the command line for use withapplications like NINA that provide the necessary FITS header values.I couldn't agree more ! Thanks for considering it. I feel we are getting on the same page now. I'm sure most APPM + ASTAP user would benefit from that too (even without noticing it), be it an automatic setting or not. Thanks for bearing with me (us) on this. Sébastien.
|
|
Re: Is this tilt in the image train?
Tom Blahovici
Well my first shot at this was pretty poor. I had very inconsistent results, that overshot what they should be been when I adjusted the tilt plate. They they went in the wrong direction! I finally got fed up and put everything back to flush with the scope.
I got to thinking though. It really was a very very slight adjustment to the tilt screws that was needed. I was also locking down the push pull screws quite a bit. So I though perhaps the tightening is distorting the actual situation. So I tightened up just the pull screws which put the tilt plates flush with the telescop and just slightly tightened the opposing screws. Result? My stars are perfect across the whole field. So what I though was tilt or miscollimation, turned out to be a distorted field due to overtightrning the adjustment screws. I'm back in business!
|
|
Re: APPM + ASTAP - Inaccurate FOV
ap@CaptivePhotons.com
Ray said:
Interesting, and it makes sense. Thank you.
Though not completely sure why the same logic can’t extend to the point mapping run.
But we’re talking about 2 seconds or so per point. If this is what you feel necessary to make it compatible with old systems, I have argued long enough (or too long). Or maybe inspiration will strike to make it even more robust.
|
|
Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount
David Diaz <night.skywatcher@...>
|
|