×

INDI Library v2.0.6 is Released (02 Feb 2024)

Bi-monthly release with minor bug fixes and improvements

Re:New Polar Alignment Scheme and Features

  • Posts: 29
  • Thank you received: 1
Sorry Jasem, I had no logs enabled last night. Will be trying again tonight.
2 years 11 months ago #69583
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 333
  • Thank you received: 23
There is a way to add a little delay betwen the slews and the capture? actually it is to fast and there is no time when the capture start form the end of the slew
2 years 11 months ago #69586
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
ALESSANDRO @Alessandro: Yes, you can add delay between slew and capture with the "Settle" setting (below "Accuracy", to the right of the Declination display in the upper left)
 
The following user(s) said Thank You: ALESSANDRO PENSATO
2 years 11 months ago #69605
Attachments:
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 333
  • Thank you received: 23
Sorry I found it after that I wrote the post. At this time I am going out of mind with my EQ6 mount that is not stable on the tripod base, I can't lock it after each azimuth correction during the polar alignment procedure
2 years 11 months ago #69606
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
To expand on what Jasem said, I suspect that our mapping of coordinates to pixels (not in the center of the image) can be off for certain types of setups.
Specifically images that astronomy.net considers parity=positive, which means they are mirrored relative to the other type of images. 
For example, it looks like images from prime-focus telescopes (e.g. RASA) are mirrored in this way, whereas the more common telescope/camera pairs
do not have this issue.  This is still a suspicion, and not confirmed.  I'm trying to debug with one tester.

Re logging, how about something like this (or more logging):
 

Bottom line, I suspect that log files that contain output with this line:are fine, but ones where the parity is instead detected as "pos" may be problematic right now.
 
2 years 11 months ago #69609
Attachments:
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 0
Just found this...great explanation. Ignore that request in the message I sent you minutes ago, and thanks again!!!
Jon
2 years 9 months ago #71830
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 398
  • Thank you received: 117
Without chasing down the problem, I can confirm that the new polar alignment scheme does not work with my RASA/CGX-L config. The symptom is as previously described; the motion in each mount axis does not correlate to the drawn vectors. Worse, the results are not sufficiently repeatable to warrant trust without verification. After confirming many times that the results were different each time invoked, (verified with drift aligns after each attempt over several nights), I gave up on the feature and returned to other align methods. Just a heads-up to folks to not blindly trust this feature without doing verification by drift align if it matters to you..... CS Doug
2 years 9 months ago #71855
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
Are you using 3.5.3 or later?
I made a change in that release that might fix the issue
2 years 9 months ago #71859
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 319
  • Thank you received: 25
Good morning Hy

I'm as well facing different results from the new polar alignment. One time it worked like magic and didn't touch the scope for 3 nights, and it was one of my best images, but a few days ago (in a different location up the north US), I spent 2 hours trying to perform polar alignment and I was getting different results each time I'm close to the match, and I had to stop with 50" error. To be fair, I will try again tonight and will share my results.

PS: During the last session I also tried the PHD polar drift align, but also it has variable inconsistent results

Forgot to mention that both sessions were done using my portable setup WO Z61, iOptron SmartEQ Pro+, Pi 4 Kstars/Indi, MyFocuserPro2, ZWO OAG with ASI120MM guide, ASI183MM Pro, ZWO EFW (LRGBHaS2O3)
Last edit: 2 years 9 months ago by Mohamed.
2 years 9 months ago #71970
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
Mohamed,

My understanding is that 50" error is very good. I agree that there is some noise in the polar alignment system, possibly due to the software, mount, or seeing. In my experience, with my setup, this noise seems to be less than an arc minute. I stop adjusting once I have the error less than an arc minute or so.

Hy
2 years 9 months ago #71975
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 319
  • Thank you received: 25
Hy

I know and was happy to reach the 50" total error, but guiding, later on, was giving me 3-4 degrees of error. This didn't happen the time before (it was flawless)

I have a question that could e basic ut worth checking, as I use OAG, in both PHD & Internal guider, I enter my scope parameters as guide scope parameters ()and the camera is the guide camera), but I was thinking that I only look into a small portion of the scope FOV periphery and not the whole aperture. Does this affect the guider calculations?
2 years 9 months ago #71981
The topic has been locked.
  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
I believe that only your focal length, and the guide-camera's pixel size matter.
I don't believe the aperture matters, though I also believe the aperture you used is the correct one.
Hy
2 years 9 months ago #71999
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.596 seconds