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

Please do the test that I asked and we'll go from there. Roland

The software for that is not presently available in APCC. We have it here for internal testing, but never will it be available for general use and pirating by our overseas competition. Roland

Or C you are not polar aligned or D you have differential flex which I have seen in the larger SCTs in fact of this magnitude and more. It is virtually impossible for the encoder to have such large

Craig, Say there is a tracking rate error of 0.1%. What makes your software immune to this tracking rate error? That is do you have to adjust the calculated rate you get by 0.1%? -Ray Gralak Author

Dale, Good point, I would like to continue investigating the discrepancy. To me some diagnostics are needed and I am asking if AP would add them to the AE tab. Craig

Yo, just a bystander watching an otherwise quite technical thread here, but check the tone before proceeding. You're either investigating a discrepancy and its cause, or you're trying to accuse people