Date   

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

Konstantin von Poschinger
 

I forgot to mention, that you should use the MGbox V2 ASCOM Local Server!




Konstantin


Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
0171 1983476

Am 06.10.2021 um 17:35 schrieb Worsel via groups.io <bryancashion@...>:

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 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

Howard Hedlund
 

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,

I am trying to use APCC pro with my automated imaging system after using the V2 driver successfully for a few years.

I get the Warning: RA limit reached error when connecting to the mount in APCC. I have confirmed that meridian and horizon limits are NOT enabled. I get the error in Park 3 and when the mount is unparked/tracking. I have tried slewing east and west. The driver has been configured for use with APCC. I am using APCC v1.9x (current), the latest V2 driver, and the current CP4 firmware. 

Does anyone have an idea what might be going on? I’m sure it is a simple setting I have overlooked.

Kind regards,

Glenn Diekmann


Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount

Howard Hedlund
 

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:


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: Final Verdict: Mach 2 Torture Test

Ram
 

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:


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: 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. 
Bill is right, my FSQ went back to Japan. It took 11 months since I sent it to Huston to the time I got it back, it was worth it. I suspect that there are many FSQ's out there that need to be collimated. In my case I believe the Pezval elements (G3 and G4?) needed to be adjusted and that can not be done in Houston.


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:

 

  • I'm also curious about the "historical" aspect of the plate solve and
  • sync.  That uses the user's declare scale information right?  Maybe avoid this whole mess and just apply the historical solution to the run as well?

 

  • Historically, users calculated camera image scale based on manufacturers' specs (e.g. 100mm F/7 should be 700mm focal length).
  • However, that specification was rarely exact, and in some cases, it was pretty far off.

 

  • So, when a new user of APPM does a mapping run, the image-scale is assumed to be inaccurate, thus the reason for the "Refine image scale" checkbox. So for mapping runs, APPM "let" the plate solver apps use image information in the FITS headers, and would update the image scale appropriately.

 

  • However, once image-scale has been established and saved in APPM, the "Plate Solve Now", etc. buttons simply used the previously established image scale, instead of assuming it might be wrong.

 

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.


Thank you for the patience.


Re: APCC feature request - Get time from mount

David Diaz <night.skywatcher@...>
 

How about this device?

I thought it was a highly recommended product for APCC

MGBOX2

—DD


Re: Seeking CP3 Control Box with V2 Chip

fernandorivera3
 

Chris, "out with the old, in with the new" regarding a PEC curve.

Fernando


Re: APPM + ASTAP - Inaccurate FOV

Ray Gralak
 

Or did I misunderstand and APPM doesn't read the headers before plate solving?
There are several different paths that APPM uses for plate-solving. APPM reads the FITS headers but doesn't parse and use every
value in every case.

I'm also curious about the "historical" aspect of the plate solve and sync. That uses the user's declare scale
information right? Maybe avoid this whole mess and just apply the historical solution to the run as well?
Historically, users calculated camera image scale based on manufacturers' specs (e.g. 100mm F/7 should be 700mm focal length).
However, that specification was rarely exact, and in some cases, it was pretty far off.

So, when a new user of APPM does a mapping run, the image-scale is assumed to be inaccurate, thus the reason for the "Refine image
scale" checkbox. So for mapping runs, APPM "let" the plate solver apps use image information in the FITS headers, and would update
the image scale appropriately.

However, once image-scale has been established and saved in APPM, the "Plate Solve Now", etc. buttons simply used the previously
established image scale, instead of assuming it might be wrong.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:58 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APPM + ASTAP - Inaccurate FOV

Ray wrote:

Still, it would be easy to include a checkbox in APPM's ASTAP config to exclude the -fov argument in the
command line for use with applications like NINA that provide the necessary FITS header values.

When I saw the error message, it looks like APPM is reading the file headers anyway, could it not just notice if
it has everything, and if not use -fov 0, if so omit?

Or did I misunderstand and APPM doesn't read the headers before plate solving?

I'm also curious about the "historical" aspect of the plate solve and sync. That uses the user's declare scale
information right? Maybe avoid this whole mess and just apply the historical solution to the run as well?

At least now we all understand, straight from the author, how it works. Thanks for being patient through that
process.




Re: Seeking CP3 Control Box with V2 Chip

Chris White
 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 05:36 PM, Roland Christen wrote:
Make a new curve. The old ones wear out with use.
 
Rolando
But that old pair of tattered blue jeans is still my most comfortable pair of pants!

Thanks Roland!!

4961 - 4980 of 86825