(Continued from above)

The PlateSolve Method. A new alternative to MoveStar is the PlateSolve method. This can polar align mounts with larger alignment errors in a single procedure. A similar triangle is displayed on the image display, but it is not central to this scheme. Rather the user should concentrate on the Updated Error line at the bottom of the display, and attempt to zero the Altitude and Azimuth errors. Also, arrows display the direction the mount needs to move to reduce error.  The method works by plate-solving images as they are captured, and then estimating the user's knob-adjustments from the plate-solve solutions. Note that, since knobs may be moved during exposures, some images may have large star trails and plate solves may fail. Be patient and allow the system to capture a clean image before relying on the error estimate.  [A triangle is superimposed on the image display, but note it is slid across the image as corrections are made, and thus do not attempt to "move stars along this triangle".]


The PlateSolve method is selected with 2s refresh. Error directions and magnitudes are displayed.



User has clicked Refresh. The center of the screen is circled. PA error is estimated, but as user hasn't adjusted knobs yet, it's the full error.



The user has adjusted the Altitude knob such that the altitude error on the bottom line is now only 12". The altitude arrow has disappeared, but there is still azimuth error.



The user has adjusted the Azimuth knob to significantly reduce the Az error (from 14'45" to 2'28").



The user has reduced both errors significantly less than 1'. At this point the user should click Stop.

Hy,

This looks very promising! Looking forward to trying the new method.

Thanks!

Ron

I think that the size changing arrows are very confusing. My preference will be a constant size one, pointing in the direction of the correction. To show the magnitude of the error, perhaps you can use arrow's color. Instead of white, they can be red/yellow/green. If you choose an intermediate size (perhaps not as large as you have shown here), they will be visible from far away. This way you will be looking for "two greens"

I second Rafa's comment, the size of the arrows should not change. Maybe have them in a size between the two presented up there in the screenshots so not too big not too small.
I would have the arrows change to a green circle when the polar alignment is within tolerances.

I think color-coding is probably better.

just a thought... If color coding is the direction, allow the user to choose some of the colors to help different contrast settings, color blindness, themes, etc.

.This is great, thank you for this great upgrade!

As far as blind plate solving, would you uncheck in Scale and Position the RA and DEC vs leaving that and entering 0? (As read in another thread)..

Also would it be proper to leave the corresponding . update check marks in place?

A side question, are nightly builds equivalent to bleeding builds?

Thx

For the plate-solving in polar alignment, I wouldn't change the plate-solve parameters from what already works for you with normal align/plate-solve.
Personally, I tend to use Scale and Position if I'm using the Internal Solver, and I tend to disable (uncheck) them if I use ASTAP, and I tend to use both.
However, if plate solving is not working well, and other things look good (focus, weather), then I'd disable scale and position.

I'm not familiar with the "entering 0" advice, haven't heard about that.
I would keep both update checkboxes checked.

Yes, I think "nightly builds" == "bleeding edge builds".

Hy

Thanks for your reply!

That advice was in this thread:

indilib.org/forum/general/11826-nexstar-11-alignment.html#83567

Thanks for this great new addition to the PAA.

I had the opportunity to test the "Plate Solve" mode yesterday as my PA was off by more ( > 2 degrees ) than my CCD field of view but the "Updated Err:" stop updating/refreshing after a few iterations and even disappeared. Any clue as to why this happened?

Thanks in advance.

Here's a thought. Stellar Solver is capable of running parallel plate solving operations on the same image with different parameters. But given already established parameters, image scale and location, it might instead be possible to use parallel solvers on different images as the refreshes come in. This way if there is a bad frame, it can automatically be aborted if a more recent frame solves first. Just update the position with the most current successful solution.

Happy to look at a debug log. Other than that, all I can say is that shouldn't happen.