Jump to content


Photo

LX850 12"

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#51 Stew57

Stew57

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
  • Joined: 03 May 2009
  • Loc: Silsbee Texas

Posted 18 March 2013 - 06:39 PM

If the equipment works as advertised the negative comments will evaporate. Meade failed at the launch so they must shoulder some of the responsibility for the negativity.

If the equipment works well as is supported by Meade with spares, this will be game changer for many. Compare a Celestron C14 Edge HD on a CGE pro to the Meade LX850 14". Just $1000 difference with the guider and software integrated and only because Celestron dropped the price of the package $1000. . It just has to live up to the expectations and have replacement parts available. Integrated solutions are only good if the integrated parts are replaceable.

#52 cn register 5

cn register 5

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:00 PM

Tony, I see you are getting LX850; are you in any kind of agreement with Meade, beta tester or otherwise of any sort? I ask this because Jason, Michael, etc. all fall in that category. Regards

Malik, Are you accusing the beta testers of lying? Because that's what it sounds to me that you are saying. If you have evidence of this then you should post your evidence. If not you should apologise.

I'm sick and tired of all these insinuations and half veiled allegations. If people don't trust beta testers to give honest information then they should say so so that the testers do not waste their time posting on CN.

Chris

#53 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5369
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:19 PM

Not at all; beta testers are bound by different covenants, that's all. If you look back, it was partly the beta testers that led to the demise of LX800; how could they have signed off? Regards

#54 OzAndrewJ

OzAndrewJ

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2010

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:21 PM

Gday Chris

If people don't trust beta testers to give honest information then they should say so



Im not so sure its that simple.
As per prev posts, the beta testers are under NDAs,
hence cant always give honest opinions on whats going on,
( as it may get fixed pre release ).

Its only after general release to the masses
that the warts ( if there are any ) can be openly discussed.

Andrew Johansen Melbourne Australia

#55 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:56 PM

Not a all; beta testers are bound by different covenants, that's all. If you look back, it was partly the beta testers that led to the demise of LX800; how could they have signed off? Regards


Neither Jason or I were beta testers on the LX800. I sure hope you don't include me in that. Have people forgotten that it was me that brought all the problems out in the open that probably hurt Meade quite a bit? You could almost hear the cussing taking place in Meade HQ directed at me. I don't know who the original beta testers were either and I agree they didn't catch anything.

If you hear me say anything good at all you can be assured it is 100% true. If I say something negative you can be assured it is 100% true. If I say nothing at all it is a percentage true.

#56 TxStars

TxStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:20 PM

OK, what ISO would you like. Also, would you prefer a DSO or a star field?

Tony


1) Star fields (Something with stars from edge to edge)
2) 45deg up & 1h either side of flip.
2) ISO 800
3) Starlock guided
4) RAW uncalibrated frames

#57 galaxy_jason

galaxy_jason

    Vendor

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 22 May 2007
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:36 PM

Collimate first, with the camera not an eyepiece

#58 Hilmi

Hilmi

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3643
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:38 PM

When assessing the results I would recommend that we clearly separate the mount assessment from the optics assessment.

#59 korborh

korborh

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 804
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 19 March 2013 - 01:26 AM

Single long exp guided RAW unprocessed frames would be really helpful.

#60 frozen.kryo

frozen.kryo

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2011
  • Loc: East of the Sun, West of the Moon

Posted 19 March 2013 - 01:40 AM

One more request: logs (un-guided) for about 3 worm periods, to see the mount's mechanical performance isolated from starlock guiding.

#61 Hilmi

Hilmi

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3643
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:06 AM

Frozen.kryo,

For the data you are looking for, it is better to use PEMPro or something similar. Because that will also tell you how smooth the PE curve is. That would tell you a lot more than looking at how streaky the stars are.

Thanks

#62 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 19 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

CCD inspector has a trial and will allow you to test quite a bit with regards to the optics. PEMPRO has a trial as well and will allow you to test quite a bit with regards to the mount. Both of these programs are not that difficult to use.

I'd be interested in seeing the following on the production units.

Starlock assisted PEC. How well does it work?
Starlock assisted Drift alignment. How accurate is it?
Starlock auto rate calibration. How do the reported values work for you?
Go-To pointing and HPP. How accurate?

Long unprocessed .fits format exposures. Minimum of 10minutes.

Post screenshots of the PEMPRO screen and the ccd inspector screen. Post log files for Alph. Speaking of whom, where has he been lately?

Now with the exception of logs for Alph, I've done everything else on my beta non-production unit. I have those results. Would be nice to compare with production results to see what if anything has changed.

#63 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1761
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:44 AM

Post log files for Alph. Speaking of whom, where has he been lately?



I am still around just staying away from psycho talk. PHD or MaximDL autoguoider logs would be very helpful in evaluating differential drift/flexure. The logs should be recorded with the main camera when the starlock is autoguiding. Simply set up your main camera for auto guiding and disable the guider output. To make the data analysis easier, align your camera with RA and Dec coordinates. For the most accurate analysis the camera angle should be known.

#64 ahopp

ahopp

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 May 2012

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:26 PM

Holy *BLEEP* BrokeAstronomer, I am not sure I know how to do all of this stuff. Will give it a try though. Will probably pelt you with many questions...

Tony

#65 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

Naw, no worries. Just enjoy your new toys!! I don't like the idea of you or anyone else feeling the least bit of pressure to provide immediate feedback. When you get the hang of things and have some free time go ahead and do some testing and if you are inclined to report back to CN, that'd be great too.

You have waited a long time. You should get to enjoy life.

#66 ahopp

ahopp

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 May 2012

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:05 PM

Was kidding, just a little bit. Will be happy to oblige, will look to you and others when I get stuck, which will mostly be when using some of these apps that I am not familiar with...

Tony






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics