Ray, Many AP clients doing photometry REQUIRE that kind of 1 arc-sec precision and it seems achievable with the right approach. A number of us would like to know more about how to achieve it.

I use an 1100 mount with my Astro-Physics180 EDT and SBIG STXL16200. The 1100 handles this setup without any problems.Here is a photo: Best Regards Michael Hambrick ARLANXEO TSR Global Manufacturing

It's all about the moment arm. Long tube, weight on each end. The Mach 2 will support the weight. But it may have the Jello effect because of the long moment arm. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy

Hi Stuart, If I absolutely need the 1600 then that may be an option. Alternately I do have a Paramount MX (legacy) with a 90 lb payload capacity which may or may not suffice. The TEC 180 spec says

Is the 1600 out of reach financially? That is a big, long scope. So weight isn't the only issue. Stuart Heggie http://www.stuartheggie.com/ -- Stuart http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/

Hello All, I have two AP refractors (130GTX and Stowaway). I am also on the April 2019 list for the Mach2 GTO and on waitlist for a TEC 180FL. I use either a SBIG ST8300M + FW or Proline FLI 16803

Hello David, We have not released the Mach2GTO manual yet because it’s not finalized. The first Mach2 owners all have a draft copy and are providing us with feedback regarding accuracy,

I have been waiting for the public release version as well. David, I was looking through the APCC Pro software manual this morning. It does reference the GTOCP5 controller which is unique to the

Hi AP, I am fortunate to be in the current group to receive a Mach2 GTO mount in the next couple of months. I was wondering if AP would post the user manual on their website for download. I am new

Hi Craig, No, I'm not saying that at all, although I'm sure under some conditions that would be possible. What I'm saying is most people would not want to do that. Most want to randomly dither the

Right now I want to focus on whether or not the basic tracking rate of the mount is correct or not. You claim that the mount tracking rate is wrong by 0.1%, so that's what I'm trying to clear up.

Ray, So if I understand correctly, using your scope, unguided, and with APCC corrective tracking, you can plate solve your first image, three hours later plate solve your last image and the difference

But why? Using APCC Pro's modeling I have had no problem doing 20-30 minute images unguided at 1.74 arc-sec/pixel with round stars. I've posted maybe about a dozen here before. A number of users have

>>>Some of the newer DSLRs have very low noise. Read up on the new Canon Ra, about which Sky& Telescope and Astronomy are raving. That said, the cooling available in many astro cameras is an

I agree with Mike that a DSLR is a good option to consider. I would offer a different take on the following. 2. IMO a DSLR is a good choice if you're just starting out. But I think buying a cooled

Ray, No problem, let me know if you want to discuss further offline. But as I said above, it is not really necessary because ATrack provides excellent tracking with whatever condition the scope/mount

Craig, So Atrack is essentially an autoguiding program. It's been done before in many different ways. Closed loop guiding is usually more accurate, so nothing new here. Wait for machine learning

Craig, Nothing indicates an error in mount clock rate. As I said before the tracking rate errors you are seeing in the APCC version you are using are almost certainly caused by unmodeled pointing

Roland, I do agree with you that errors in polar alignment, tube flexure, mirror shift, cables, etc can all contribute to factors that will reduce the effectiveness of using APCC for long duration

ATrack monitors a science images folder for new images recorded by the camera. New images are added by Voyager/MaximDL. When a new image is detected ATrack does a plate solve and measure both drift