APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)


ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar aligned after I put things together). 

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all. 

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run). 

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or some specified number of model points), and check just those.  The idea is to see if your model is still good but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model). 

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad, and is worth using.  The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly? 

Linwood


 

Hi Linwood

Based on my experience, i think you can safely reuse the model from nigh to night, you just need to solve and recal your pointing position

There is a built-in sort of check in APPM where you can skip model building and just assess the results. I am not in front of my computer so I can't tell you the details there




On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 8:33 AM ap@... <ap@...> wrote:
The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar aligned after I put things together). 

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all. 

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run). 

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or some specified number of model points), and check just those.  The idea is to see if your model is still good but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model). 

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad, and is worth using.  The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly? 

Linwood



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

Brian Valente wrote:

 

 

  • Based on my experience, i think you can safely reuse the model from nigh to night, you just need to solve and recal your pointing position

 

I do.  Thanks.

 

  • There is a built-in sort of check in APPM where you can skip model building and just assess the results. I am not in front of my computer so I can't tell you the details there

 

What I found checks each point, so it takes the same time to process as it would to rebuild.  Hence the thinking of a sanity check instead of a complete verification.

 


John Upton
 

Linwood,

   I also set up anew each night (for the most part). I understand exactly your concerns with using an old model. I have not tried it out yet but think I will try this soon -- the night or two.
  • Build a small (normal for me) model of maybe 30 to 50 points. 
  • Use that model for the evening.

  • Next night, enable the previous 30-50 point model's pointing and tracking corrections and recal at the zenith or maybe at the intersection of the celestial equator and meridian.
  • Create and run a new "tiny model" of 9 points (Zenith and 4 East and West).
  • Do not install the new 9 point model.
  • Check the APPM reported errors for each point in the new model.
  • If they are all less than about 1-2 arc-minutes (or other criteria), discard the 9 point model and use the previous recal'ed 30-50 point model.
  • If there are larger errors in the "check (9) point model", go ahead and run a new full model.
   The intent for me is to run a new model while the previous one is active. (This assumes the old model is activated / enabled and a recal has been done.) Hopefully, the recal'ed old model should have accounted for orthogonality errors and differences in polar alignment. The new 9 point run is a way of checking how much difference there is between the old and new models.

   Does anyone do anything like this? Will it work? I do plan to try it out and see for myself. I expect the downsides to be differences in temperature and air pressure from night to night but I assume those differences are also present if you have a permanent set-up.

John


Ray Gralak
 

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood


John Upton
 

On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 02:35 PM, Ray Gralak wrote:
1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.
Ray,

   Thanks for that bit of information. The method I was going to try as documented above will not work since any existing model would have been turned off. I can use the same method so long as I check the Verify Model box, though. It is good to know that I was almost on the right track.

John


ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

Ray Gralak wrote:

You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.
I had no idea, that's exactly what I was looking for. I just assumed the 'verify' had to rerun exactly the same points that built it.

Thank you!

Linwood


Dale Ghent
 

I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood





Dale Ghent
 

Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood









ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

Dale Ghent wrote:

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.
Now that's intriguing. Your prior one, to build a whole sky model automates a function I would do infrequently enough building manually was no real task. But this sounds short enough to include, especially in the early part of the evening before full dark, and build a target specific one and just do it routinely.

This cooperative effort between NINA and APPM is starting to look even better.

On a related note, last night I ran about 9 points of the verify with pointing/tracking on and off against an old model. It was a bit of a mixed bag... most points were substantially further off in the "off" mode (like 0.9" vs 0.3" as kind of an eyeball estimate), but a few were slightly worse with the model on. Bear in mind the model was made weeks ago on a portable rig, so the whole idea was to see if it remained valid, so the answer may be a definite "sort of maybe" and "needs a better test run". I was in a hurry last night.

Some night with a lot of moon or other reason not to image, I may build a much larger model to test against, but really for how I image, Dale's automation and Ray's Dec Arc may be a much more elegant solution. Generally I do not need to know about the whole sky, just a tiny portion of it.

(Skeptic in me has to add: if I even need that, guided accuracy is so good, this all may be moot; those that do not guide YMMV).

Linwood


Tom Zepf
 

That is an interesting addition to the NINA Plugin. The Ground Control plugin with PushOver support is great too. Thanks Dale!

If I have a "single target night", I might use that instead of generating a whole model. I was experimenting last night and found that I could build my 52 point model (20° increments with my wonky horizon)  easily in the time between nautical and astronomical twilight, so I may just stick with that. One thing that did take me by surprise is that it looks like APPM parks the scope when finished so I had to add another instruction to unpack the scope later on so imaging would succeed.

   Tom


Dale Ghent
 


Thanks, Tom! Glad you find the plugins useful.

APPM's actions at the end of a modeling run can be configured. When used from within NINA, it's suggested to set it to "No action" if your next move in the sequence is to slew to a target and begin imaging it.



On Nov 7, 2021, at 11:49, Tom Zepf <tjzcos@...> wrote:

That is an interesting addition to the NINA Plugin. The Ground Control plugin with PushOver support is great too. Thanks Dale!

If I have a "single target night", I might use that instead of generating a whole model. I was experimenting last night and found that I could build my 52 point model (20° increments with my wonky horizon)  easily in the time between nautical and astronomical twilight, so I may just stick with that. One thing that did take me by surprise is that it looks like APPM parks the scope when finished so I had to add another instruction to unpack the scope later on so imaging would succeed.

   Tom


W Hilmo
 

Do you have any links to an alternative description of how this works?

The video on the first link is, as you say, in potato mode.  The YouTube link has legible video, but both videos are missing audio for me.  I may have a clear night or two this week and I would like to experiment with integrating creation of the dec-arc tracking model into my sequence.

Thanks,
-Wade

On 11/7/21 12:47 AM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood









Dale Ghent
 

I don't have anything fresher than that video at the moment, but I have been working on this Advanced Sequencer plugin quite a bit lately. It has turned into a project between Ray and myself, with some new features in APPM that allows external thingies such as this plugin to interact with APPM better.

The backend of the plugin is kind of exploded on the floor at the moment so it's not a good moment to hand something off to try, and the code will require a beta version of APPM that I don't think is generally available. But, what I can do right now is whip up a better video to explain things in a clearer manner.

On Nov 15, 2021, at 16:48, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Do you have any links to an alternative description of how this works?

The video on the first link is, as you say, in potato mode. The YouTube link has legible video, but both videos are missing audio for me. I may have a clear night or two this week and I would like to experiment with integrating creation of the dec-arc tracking model into my sequence.

Thanks,
-Wade

On 11/7/21 12:47 AM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood















W Hilmo
 

No rush at this point.  It'll probably be a few days before I get the rig up and running again :)

-Wade

On 11/15/21 6:18 PM, Dale Ghent wrote:
I don't have anything fresher than that video at the moment, but I have been working on this Advanced Sequencer plugin quite a bit lately. It has turned into a project between Ray and myself, with some new features in APPM that allows external thingies such as this plugin to interact with APPM better.

The backend of the plugin is kind of exploded on the floor at the moment so it's not a good moment to hand something off to try, and the code will require a beta version of APPM that I don't think is generally available. But, what I can do right now is whip up a better video to explain things in a clearer manner.


On Nov 15, 2021, at 16:48, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Do you have any links to an alternative description of how this works?

The video on the first link is, as you say, in potato mode. The YouTube link has legible video, but both videos are missing audio for me. I may have a clear night or two this week and I would like to experiment with integrating creation of the dec-arc tracking model into my sequence.

Thanks,
-Wade

On 11/7/21 12:47 AM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood













Dale Ghent
 

Alright, here's 30 minutes of me talking about it:

https://youtu.be/TOUqKZXJyUs

On Nov 15, 2021, at 21:18, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I don't have anything fresher than that video at the moment, but I have been working on this Advanced Sequencer plugin quite a bit lately. It has turned into a project between Ray and myself, with some new features in APPM that allows external thingies such as this plugin to interact with APPM better.

The backend of the plugin is kind of exploded on the floor at the moment so it's not a good moment to hand something off to try, and the code will require a beta version of APPM that I don't think is generally available. But, what I can do right now is whip up a better video to explain things in a clearer manner.


On Nov 15, 2021, at 16:48, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Do you have any links to an alternative description of how this works?

The video on the first link is, as you say, in potato mode. The YouTube link has legible video, but both videos are missing audio for me. I may have a clear night or two this week and I would like to experiment with integrating creation of the dec-arc tracking model into my sequence.

Thanks,
-Wade

On 11/7/21 12:47 AM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood



















John Upton
 

Ray,

On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 02:35 PM, Ray Gralak wrote:
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.
   I usually set up anew each night but this past week we had a couple of nights in a row that were clear. I left the Mach2 set up for a couple of nights. I had built a small model (33 points) the first night so the next, I ran a super-tiny "spot check" model of only 9 points to verify pointing.

   Before running the verification, I disabled the model for both pointing and tracking corrections. I checked and slightly tweaked my polar alignment. I then ran the 9 point Verify run against the larger existing model. All points had an error of 0.2 arc-minutes or (much) less for the verification run. I decided to keep the existing model.

   I switched from APPM to APCC and was surprised to find that the older (now verified) model was active. APPM / APCC had re-enabled pointing and tracking corrections.

   This leads to my questions: 
  1. Does APCC / APPM have a built-in criteria for how good a model Verify run should be before re-enabling pointing and tracking corrections?

    --Or--

  2. Does APCC always enable pointing and tracking corrections after a Verify run regardless of how large / small the pointing errors were?

John


Ray Gralak
 

Hi John,

I switched from APPM to APCC and was surprised to find that the older (now verified) model was active.
APPM / APCC had re-enabled pointing and tracking corrections.
A Verify measures but does not modify the loaded pointing model. To do that, it turns on pointing and tracking rate corrections.

1. Does APCC / APPM have a built-in criteria for how good a model Verify run should be before re-
enabling pointing and tracking corrections?
No, it just measures pointing errors.

2. Does APCC always enable pointing and tracking corrections after a Verify run regardless of how large /
small the pointing errors were?
APPM turns on pointing and tracking corrections at the start of a Verify run, leaving them on afterward.

-Ray


W Hilmo
 

Thanks!  That is helpful.

I notice that the version that I'm running does not have the Dec Arc tab in the properties for the plug-in.  The plug-in version number that I have is 1.3.5.0.

What version do I need, and do I need to do anything to get it other than download a nightly build that has it?

-Wade

On 11/15/21 10:42 PM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Alright, here's 30 minutes of me talking about it:

https://youtu.be/TOUqKZXJyUs

On Nov 15, 2021, at 21:18, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I don't have anything fresher than that video at the moment, but I have been working on this Advanced Sequencer plugin quite a bit lately. It has turned into a project between Ray and myself, with some new features in APPM that allows external thingies such as this plugin to interact with APPM better.

The backend of the plugin is kind of exploded on the floor at the moment so it's not a good moment to hand something off to try, and the code will require a beta version of APPM that I don't think is generally available. But, what I can do right now is whip up a better video to explain things in a clearer manner.


On Nov 15, 2021, at 16:48, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Do you have any links to an alternative description of how this works?

The video on the first link is, as you say, in potato mode. The YouTube link has legible video, but both videos are missing audio for me. I may have a clear night or two this week and I would like to experiment with integrating creation of the dec-arc tracking model into my sequence.

Thanks,
-Wade

On 11/7/21 12:47 AM, Dale Ghent wrote:
Ack! I didn't realize that imgur reduced the video resolution to potato mode. Here's a better view:

https://youtu.be/OoJCp6sZhuo

On Nov 7, 2021, at 02:38, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:


I meant to get this rolling sooner, but life threw me a curveball last month. Thanks to Ray's additions to the upcoming APCC Pro 1.9.1.x, there's now an easy way to programmatically feed model creation parameters to APPM so that it can produce a model plan using that also considers the other things you might have configured in APPM - horizons, limits, ordering strategy and so on.

So I created a new sequencer instruction for my AP mount plugin for NINA called "Create Dec Arc Model". It will get the RA and dec of the current target and have APPM create a model plan based on that info. You would place this instruction at the start of a target's run so that a dec-arc model is created and put in place prior to getting down to business.

It'll currently create 3 arcs - 1 centered on or (or at least very near) the target's declination, and 2 additional arcs - one on the north side and the other on the south side of the target's declination, separated from the center arc by a configurable number of degrees. Point density along the arcs, in the RA, is another parameter that can be tuned. The arcs will begin (ie, their eastern-most extent) slightly before the target's current hour angle and extend to the configured minimum altitude or the western horizon limit, whichever is hit first. Obviously it's quite advantageous to use your local horizon limits in order to cut down on pointless (ha ha) map points.

Below is a short video of me futzing around with the new code. In it, I select a target in Stellarium (the CA nebula) and import it into NINA's Framing Assistant. I then create a target session using a small sequence template I made that has just the "Create Dec Arc Model" instruction in it. I then run that sequence. With debug logging on, the APPM configuration gets quoted in NINA's log file, so I copy and pasted that config into its own text file and loaded it into APPM to look at the point map. Presto, there's a 3-arc wide dec model based on the CA nebula's location at that time. Obviously this would all be automatic in practice, with a temporary config file being made and fed to APPM directly... this just lets me debug at each step as I work on the code.

I'll put some more polish and testing on it over the next days. If any NINA user here is interested in trying it out, see me on the NINA Discord chat.

https://i.imgur.com/jU1UQTa.mp4

On Nov 6, 2021, at 15:35, Ray Gralak <iogroups@...> wrote:

Hi Linwood,

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?
You could do a simple test to find out! Specifically, you could do a Verify run in APPM with a much smaller number of points than your model. That is, a Verify run does not have to use the same points as your active model. When you do this, take a look at the measured pointing errors in the table that APPM creates in the verify run.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, there are two main differences between a normal APPM run and a verify:

1) The Verify run keeps the active model on, while a normal run would have modeling off.

2) The Verify run will not replace your active model. That is, APPM won't ask to load it into APCC, and APPM will even warn you if you try to load a verify run.

Also, a verify run will probably be much less useful if you are checking a few Dec Arc rows, because it wouldn't take much longer to create new Dec Arcs.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of ap@...
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:33 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APPM Model sanity check (suggestion)

The discussion on refreshing reminds me to ask this.

I set up and tear down nightly, but fairly precisely in the same setup (example: I usually land within 5' of polar
aligned after I put things together).

I have built a nice model of the sky, but for just time constraints (and I guide) I do not build a new model each
night, and because I worry the model is no longer good, I generally do not use one at all.

I know that APPM has a verify process, that will check each model point for consistency (presumably to flush
out equipment variability that may be invalidating it from run to run).

Would it be possible to have a similar process, perhaps a "model sanity check", which would take 10% (or
some specified number of model points), and check just those. The idea is to see if your model is still good
but in far less time than a complete verify run (which basically takes the same time it would to build a model).

I am not sure how to interpret it, but some kind of correlation calculation could tell you if it looks good or bad,
and is worth using. The idea is spending 10 minutes to validate a fairly large model rather than 60-90 minutes
to build a new one.

Or... am I just crazy to consider reusing a model after a tear down and reassembly?

Linwood
















Dale Ghent
 

On Nov 16, 2021, at 20:25, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:

Thanks! That is helpful.

I notice that the version that I'm running does not have the Dec Arc tab in the properties for the plug-in. The plug-in version number that I have is 1.3.5.0.

What version do I need, and do I need to do anything to get it other than download a nightly build that has it?
This dec arc code isn't released yet. APCC's current beta introduces a new REST API for controlling how APPM is configured, so I've spent the past day or so converting the plugin over to it. Prior to this API, the instruction would generate a configuration file of parameters and launch APPM with an argument that told it to use that file. Better testing can be done once some loose ends with this API are addressed.

Speaking of testing, it looks like weather and prior obligations will lock me out of testing this under actual sky until later next week. We're getting our first winter storm on Monday or Tuesday, and I won't be available on the only clear-ish night between now and then. My remote setup plans can't happen soon enough (and those are still roughly a year out from coming to fruition.)