1. Topics
  2. Performance Check

Performance Check

Rafa
 

Finally got going!
ended up getting help from Rouz; what a guy! Fully recommend. There was stuff in there I can fully accept, I would’ve never figured out. I’m not very program savvy and it takes me time to digest. Afterwards, I do fine….
Once meridians and horizons are set, almost nothing else matters for peace of mind. 

I was wrong about not being able to stop a slew into hitting a pier. I tested it from various angles, and that mount stops
like it hit something; except there’s nothing there😊 love it!
Love the workflow, speed and gladly acquiesce to the  louder than usual sound.
Modeling was such a pleasure! My goodness, 178 points in just under an hour; no failed points. I’m used to almost 2 hrs for 75points. Boom, done and on to the next.
Guiding, this one seems to take longer to nail down, as it seems there’s some trial and error that just has to take place?
Last nite was excellent seeing, not a cloud. ;1.4
RMS hovered around .40 mostly and got down to .29 at one point.  Before the modeling and during phd2 calibration, it would hover around .25; this was very limited, though, because, as I said, I was working on other stuff.

for some reason, my PhD does not give me the same options as explained on the video. It wasn’t until I figured out how to delay the time between sequences, that my guiding got better. 
Eccentricity turned into eggcentricity with some subs. They were coming in at .36 to .44 . Ok I guess?
Just running these numbers by the board to make sure that it’s performing as-it should .
I don’t want to be demanding more than it can give.
Brian Valente
 

Hi Rafa

Can you upload your guidelogs so we can take a look? Preferably one with a calibration in it

>>>for some reason, my PhD does not give me the same options as explained on the video.

What options were missing? Make sure you are on the latest dev release https://openphdguiding.org/development-snapshots/

Regarding eccentricity - generally, eccentricity 0.5 or lower is good


Brian

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 6:24 AM Rafa <rafa@...> wrote:

Finally got going!
ended up getting help from Rouz; what a guy! Fully recommend. There was stuff in there I can fully accept, I would’ve never figured out. I’m not very program savvy and it takes me time to digest. Afterwards, I do fine….
Once meridians and horizons are set, almost nothing else matters for peace of mind. 

I was wrong about not being able to stop a slew into hitting a pier. I tested it from various angles, and that mount stops
like it hit something; except there’s nothing there😊 love it!
Love the workflow, speed and gladly acquiesce to the  louder than usual sound.
Modeling was such a pleasure! My goodness, 178 points in just under an hour; no failed points. I’m used to almost 2 hrs for 75points. Boom, done and on to the next.
Guiding, this one seems to take longer to nail down, as it seems there’s some trial and error that just has to take place?
Last nite was excellent seeing, not a cloud. ;1.4
RMS hovered around .40 mostly and got down to .29 at one point.  Before the modeling and during phd2 calibration, it would hover around .25; this was very limited, though, because, as I said, I was working on other stuff.

for some reason, my PhD does not give me the same options as explained on the video. It wasn’t until I figured out how to delay the time between sequences, that my guiding got better. 
Eccentricity turned into eggcentricity with some subs. They were coming in at .36 to .44 . Ok I guess?
Just running these numbers by the board to make sure that it’s performing as-it should .
I don’t want to be demanding more than it can give.



--

Roland Christen
 

I can't tell what your Dec aggressiveness is set at. It looks like it's set too high and that may cause the Dec to bounce around a lot as it chases the seeing. Your Mon-Mo might also be set too low so if the seeing is not perfect, it will cause the Dec axis to bounce back and forth.

By the way, transparency and seeing are not the same thing. You can have perfectly clear transparent skies and the seeing can be total crap. In fact, most times that is what happens because high transparency usually means that the land will cool off rapidly and this causes upper atmosphere disturbance which makes seeing bad. Seeing is the movement of stars due to atmospheric motion. Transparency is a measure of how clear the sky is and the minimum magnitude that is visible.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafa <rafa@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 8:14 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Performance Check

Finally got going!
ended up getting help from Rouz; what a guy! Fully recommend. There was stuff in there I can fully accept, I would’ve never figured out. I’m not very program savvy and it takes me time to digest. Afterwards, I do fine….
Once meridians and horizons are set, almost nothing else matters for peace of mind. 
I was wrong about not being able to stop a slew into hitting a pier. I tested it from various angles, and that mount stops
like it hit something; except there’s nothing there😊 love it!
Love the workflow, speed and gladly acquiesce to the  louder than usual sound.
Modeling was such a pleasure! My goodness, 178 points in just under an hour; no failed points. I’m used to almost 2 hrs for 75points. Boom, done and on to the next.
Guiding, this one seems to take longer to nail down, as it seems there’s some trial and error that just has to take place?
Last nite was excellent seeing, not a cloud. ;1.4
RMS hovered around .40 mostly and got down to .29 at one point.  Before the modeling and during phd2 calibration, it would hover around .25; this was very limited, though, because, as I said, I was working on other stuff.
for some reason, my PhD does not give me the same options as explained on the video. It wasn’t until I figured out how to delay the time between sequences, that my guiding got better. 
Eccentricity turned into eggcentricity with some subs. They were coming in at .36 to .44 . Ok I guess?
Just running these numbers by the board to make sure that it’s performing as-it should .
I don’t want to be demanding more than it can give.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics
Rafa
 

Thank you all for your help.
I believe I’m ready to go to the adults Pool now.
From what I have gathered here, you have to let the encoders do their work.
Longer exposures together with even longer delays between them, made all the difference for me.
Roland Christen
 

That looks excellent.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafa <rafa@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 10, 2023 7:55 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Performance Check

Thank you all for your help.
I believe I’m ready to go to the adults Pool now.
From what I have gathered here, you have to let the encoders do their work.
Longer exposures together with even longer delays between them, made all the difference for me.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics
Brian Valente
 

"From what I have gathered here, you have to let the encoders do their work."

👍


On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:07 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
That looks excellent.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafa <rafa@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 10, 2023 7:55 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Performance Check

Thank you all for your help.
I believe I’m ready to go to the adults Pool now.
From what I have gathered here, you have to let the encoders do their work.
Longer exposures together with even longer delays between them, made all the difference for me.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics



--

Eric Claeys
 

What are all the spikes from?  Not dither I  assume.
Brian Valente
 

those look like corrections but the scale is zoomed up


On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:52 AM Eric Claeys <AstroEric@...> wrote:
What are all the spikes from?  Not dither I  assume.



--

1 - 8 of 8