You would need to run it when unparking from the driver's custom park position. I can't tell you where that would be in ACP's script logic. You'll have to ask Bob Denny how/where to call the script if

Thanks very much for this Ray, I'm just a little confused as to where this should be used in ACP? As the pointing & tracking correction turn off everytime the mount is parked, the script would need to

Thanks for the suggestions.

I wouldn't use tape. It's prone to turning out to be a mess, has a high chance of not being perfectly circular, and yea the adhesive could have an effect on the coating. I would have a mask 3D

If I were to attempt to mask the edge what kind of tape can you use that wouldn’t harm the coatings? Robert

Can you start making some smaller RC’s😀Thanks for the suggestion. One of the problems is how sensitive the CMOS cameras are. It is very easy to blow out stars. With my FSQ at f/5 I can’t shoot

I like the resolution on that Running Man image. Very nice. Try masking down the outer 1/8 inch of the mirror, see if that reduces the spray of light around the brightest stars. If that works, think

Tighten it hand tight (do not apply too much pressure, we use between 10 and 15 inch-Lb.). Then add a drop of superglue on the outside of the threads. If you ever need to loosen it for any reason, it

Robert, these are both super shots but the Running Man is my favorite for sure. Stuart Heggie http://www.stuartheggie.com/ -- Stuart http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/

So, would you say the new advantages of the small pixel CMOS cameras is that they bring high sensitivity to small pixels? I also got a shot of the Running Man with the 1600mm

The flat washer, the one withtwo holes on it at the end of the worm shaft (under the little screw on cover) continuesto loosen up causing some degree of backlash. It has done it for both RA andDEC.

You are running 0.6 arc sec per pixel, which to me is not oversampling for high resolution imaging. In fact, for galaxies i prefer 0.3 to 0.4 arc sec per pixel which really brings out fine detail. My

In my experience when I was using my 10" F14 Mak-Cass under very good seeing conditions I was able to resolve tiny doubles separated by 0.8 arc seconds in a deep sky image with a 7.5 micron pixel

How good would 2.5um pixels look on a 2.5m focal length at 0.21"/pixel? Pretty good provided you have the extra time that will be required to expose the target and if "normal" seeing for you is also

Thanks Roland. My last dark sky outing was my first use of this scope and camera. I am really confused on the whole image scale question. I bought this camera because it has the largest pixels of

Yeah, those are working out to be great sensors (the mono or color ~61mp IMX455, or the color-only 26.8mp IMX571, both with 3.76um pixels). I still keep dreaming that Sony (or someone) will release a

I would look seriously at the new 16bit cmos cameras from QHY and ZWO. Jg

Perhaps... probably would be fine. The 2.5-5um pixel size range of the common CMOS sensors these days will demand good seeing at that kind of focal length, but it's workable. What I would do is always

That's really nice. Sharp and great color. A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos

Please disregard my last email it was sent to the wrong group. Late night and no coffee. steve