FFT's are old-school. The techniques are easily found if you do searches for them but I consider the specific methods PEMPro uses as trade secrets (and there will be advances in PEMPro V3). I can tell you the techniques used are related to singular value decomposition. Many tool vendors, include the PECPrep author has copied PEMPro's ideas so I'm not about to give people more things to copy.
BTW, how did you determine that PECPrep is even accurate? The critical FFT routines are NOT open source. For all you know there could be a bug. The author seems to have a standing policy of letting the users test his code rather than always doing it himself.
For the record PECPrep is an original work that was inspired by PEAs and the requests of our users. No reference to PEMPro was made during its development and PEMPro remains software which I have never installed or used (nor I doubt ever will). That said I am aware that the layout of the frequency spectrum screen in PECPrep has a remarkably similar equivalent in PEMPro ?? perhaps its just a case that two applications doing the same job will inevitably take on a similar appearance (unless you know otherwise?)
I have no interest in copying your work or in using experimental/unattributed algorithms. FFTs are an industry standard, well proven technique for vibration analysis and thus far have served us well in the analysis of telescope mount periodic error which is hardly the most challenging environment it which FFT analysis has been successfully applied.
PECPrep is tested by me before issue to our EQMOD group for further testing prior to full public release via sourceforge.
For a commercial vendor such as yourself to cynically attempt to discredit the efforts of a community based project is a disgrace and I trust all can see your true colours. I'm frankly surprised that the moderators here allow such behaviour.
Sigh... here we go again... I didn't say anything that isn't true. If you think I did I would like you to tell me exactly what it is and I think I'll prove you wrong. You claim your source code is open source but the critical routines are not open source. How can you guarantee your routines say what you say they do? How is your guarantee any different than mine?
I'll tell you.. the difference is that the PEC curves created by PEMPro have been written back to thousands of mounts and the proof is in the results of happy customers. I have tried PECPrep and your PEC code in EQMOD and I have told you it does NOT work very well. You've refused to listen so what can I say. I've even asked if I could contribute fixes to the code base but you don't respond. How is it a community project if you are the only person that is allowed to contribute code?
And, Mon, who originally developed most of EQMOD, contacted me about making PEMPro work with EQMOD before you had even started work on your PEC code. I find it very hard to believe that you never looked at PEMPro's documentation nor even had any influence from Mon to try to copy some of the features of PEMPro. I think that PEMPro was, and still is, the leader in this area and for you to say you never heard of it or at least knew of what it does is quite astounding, especially since you heard of PEAS, which was created after PEMPro. Maybe you were you just really green in your knowledge of software for astronomy??
That said, PECPrep is not really a competitor to PEMPro. PEMPro has camera control and provides support and training capability for every type of mount with PEC. PECPrep is mostly an analysis tool for everything but some Synta mounts. PEMPro uses modern signal analysis techniques (not EXPERIMENTAL) as well as older techniques such as FFTs. If I wanted to use FFTs throughout PEMPro I could have used but I didn't. So you are welcome to remain ignorant of newer, better techniques, but I think that using new and better techniques often distinguishes a good software product.