Indeed, it does.
(Not intuitive though, as the list is updated on the fly, suggesting it's active - and from KStars people are probably careful with hitting enter after text inputs )

Gotcha. Well that is easy enough to fix. Ok I will change that.

I meant it's not saved to the report along other solving engines. I though it would be useful for you to analyze results submitted by users.
For ASTAP, I have it installed and plate solving the same images without issues. It might be a matter of default parameters though.
BTW. I was running the tests on x64 powered by Ubuntu 18.04 (all paths verified before test, all (!) astrometry index files installed)

Yes, this is extremely useful feedback!!!

Thanks Rob, I'll try that. My RPi4 is a full fat one with 4Gb of memory and so far the only thing that's stetched it is building indI and EKOS.It would be useful because it's very easy to forget to set something even when testing.I always think it's useful to run as a total newcomer, simply using all the defaults. Software is very good at teaching people to avoid its pitfalls and before you know it people are saying that it's fine once you understand it.

Chris

Herre's my little contribution...

The average time is 4/5 secs with internal sextractor/external solver, against 24/25 secs with astrometry.net.
Although usually I get better results with astrometry.net in kstars (around 12 secs) the gain is obvious.
One image failed with astrometry.net and worked with internal sextractor/external solver.

Images are taken with 2800 mm focal length, full frame 24x36 and ASI1600mm-Pro.
Laptop Intel I3 8GB mem SSD drive.

- Marc

Thank you to everyone who has tested so far. I tried to address some of the items of feedback I have received.

- Index File paths is now not editable, you click the buttons to add or remove paths to avoid the issue users had with the enter key.
- I resolved the cancelling issue for external astrometry engine. Now I both kill astrometry and give it a cancel file.
- I fixed the ASTAP Path for Linux
- I added a maximum diameter option for star filtering
- I added the automatic saving of settings (but NOT options)
- I added options profiles for sextracting/solving, so that you can use different profiles in different situations
- The profiles can be saved and loaded to disk so that you can perfect some settings and share it with me so I can try to make it better
- I added a multiple trials spin box so that you can set it to solve using the settings x number of times and compute the average time.

github.com/rlancaste/sexysolver-tester/releases/tag/0.9

Please continue to test and have fun! Let me know of any problems or if you find it, the perfect settings .

Rob,

I updated to your latest version and ran 5 trials on each the internal solver and classic astrometry.net. I have uploaded a zip file with the csv from SexySolver and a LibreOffice spreadsheet where I looked at the ratio of the astrometry.net time to the internal solver time. I also noticed how hot the CPU got during, especially the astrometry.net solution, and have attached a screenshot of my plasma simple monitor widget (during an astrometry.net trial).

Is there a way for this solver to output the amount of error when plate solving? I'm running into an issue with MountWizard4, that uses the KStars solver, ASTAP, Cloudmakers, or external Astrometry, and for some reason certain solvers produce a large amount of error when solving. ( see issue here ). This amount of error, leads to poor mount models where most of the points are unusable.

RDBeck,

Thanks for testing again, nice variety of different images! That's a good verification that it works. Looks like you always used the defaults, did you want to try playing with some settings? In terms of how hot the CPU gets, I don't know that there is anything we can do about that. Plate solving is an intensive operation and will tax the CPU a bit.

Lead_weight,

I assume you mean how far off the final plate solved result image center is from the initial RA and DEC from the search parameters? Right now it doesn't do that, but that might be useful since many programs use that info.

Thanks,

Rob

Yes, that's exactly what we're looking at. For some reason certain solvers show lots of error, around 800-2000, while others only show 50 or so. You can see it in the screenshot of the thread I linked. We're trying to uncover why this is happening with certain solvers. So I was just curious if you could report the error in the table results so we can see if any of the built in solvers for KStars show this issue.

Sure, I can add that