8" GSO RC with CSL Moonlite FocuserTelevue TV60isLosmandy G11 with Gemini 2 (with Ovision upgrade)
SBIG STT-8300m with Self Guiding filter wheel
A wide assortment of lenses for my Canon.
C14 EdgeHD, C11 EdgeHD Zhumell 8" f/6 Newt AP1200GTO, CGEM DX, CG5-ASGT Rob Miller Tri36M tripod Canon Rebel XS, Atik 314L+, DSI pro I,II, QHY5L-II SX 7 FW with Astrodon LRGB, Ha 5nm Hutech OAG5, Rainbow Optics Grating Scorpio Observatory
Quote:The MX can *only* be driven by TheSkyX. There are many astronomy programs that use ASCOM and/or run on other devices and using ASCOM - these will not work with MX. That can be a limitation/issue for some.
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes living with misery a lot easier!
Quote:Quote:The MX can *only* be driven by TheSkyX. There are many astronomy programs that use ASCOM and/or run on other devices and using ASCOM - these will not work with MX. That can be a limitation/issue for some. Considering that the purchase price includes all the software needed and that it's compatible with Mac and Windows, I don't see why this would be an issue other than those mentioned about being tied to a computer.David
LX850 blog: www.LX-850.com
personal website: www.wadsworthobservatory.com
Quote:It interfaces nicely with them all Unless there's a new defect in TheSkyX, the limitation claimed above isn't valid.
Quote:The point was not about software, but about PMX hardware. The limitation could arise if someone wants to use a device using some other planetarium or any other application that uses ASCOM to talk to mounts. They can't do it unless its TheSkyX. You are benefiting from the fact that your mount can be controlled by the application you chose. You are using ASCOM driver or software written to work with TheSky6 for your mount. My point is that is an advantage when it comes to mounts - being able to talk ASCOM.
Others may disagree. Your millage may vary. Void where prohibited by law.
Quote:personally i don't see ascom as that great. the reliance on clunky activeX makes it slow and not so reliable. the bisque solution is actually better. the only reason for ascom existence is that it is a standard.i wish manufacturers would support INDI more.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Quote:Rod, it's not too speedy for me.
Quote:Rod, it's not too speedy for me.In any case it's a windows only solution. So the Mac users have to look at other options. At least Bisque supports them.
Quote:Quote:Quote:The MX can *only* be driven by TheSkyX. There are many astronomy programs that use ASCOM and/or run on other devices and using ASCOM - these will not work with MX. That can be a limitation/issue for some. Considering that the purchase price includes all the software needed and that it's compatible with Mac and Windows, I don't see why this would be an issue other than those mentioned about being tied to a computer.David I am among those who selected TheSky6 as my primary telescope control software years ago but don't own a Bisque mount so I had to purchase it. It was a good investment. I have used quite a few ASCOM-compatible programs along with it, and have never found one that didn't work with TheSky6 and a TheSky-controlled telescope. It interfaces nicely with them all Unless there's a new defect in TheSkyX, the limitation claimed above isn't valid.
Clear skies - Jim Crazy PNW imager !
A-P Mach1 on 12" concrete pier - ROR structure.
Tak FSQ85-EDX, Tak FS-128. Orion 8" f/3.9 w/MoonLite motorized - MPCC MkIII CCD:
SBIG 8300M/FW8, Astrodon 36mm LRGB, 5nm Ha, 3nm SII, OIII - Canon EOS 6D unmod SSI3, SSAG,
Skytools3pro, MaxImDLpro, PSCS5, PSPpro, TheSkyX, TheSky6, BYE, StarTools
Orion XX14g -for visual- diags, ep's, accy tubes, Binocs .
Quote:In looking at my next purchase it's interesting. IMO the Bisque mount is great mechanicals coupled with great software. For imaging it's a dream machine. As far as the always unavoidable comparison to A-P, I think that the concept of software is something A-P is trying to catch up on with APCC though it's nowhere near what you get with a Paramount. In one it's 'our mount is perfect and we cn't help it if your scope is slightly non-ortho to it... the other is hey, let's get your scope imaging... It's two different schools of thought from inception and cleary obvious in the to customer product offering. Two great mounts, two great companies, with vastly different approaches to software integration and implementation. ummm USB? ... Both work very well at what they are supposed to in their way, have the images and customers to prove it. it's a choice that is actually a choice and we're lucky to have it. Dropping the price by $1k is fantastic.
"Coffee leads men to trifle away their time, scald their chops, and spend their money, all for a little base, black, thick, nasty, bitter, stinking nauseous puddle water." ~The Women's Petition Against Coffee, 1674If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.
Quote:yes the absolute homing on the MX is a big deal.the new 'S' firmware for the CP3 supposedly helps with this because the mount no longer has to be parked (it remembers its position when it loses power) so - in theory - a homing sensor is no longer required.how well this actually works in practice, i don't know.
Mach1GTO / G11/G2 (stock) / AT6RC / AT10RC / TMB92SS / Astrodon 50D / STT-8300M / FW8G-STT / PixInsight / etc, etc. Astrobin - Flickr
Quote:I was referring to what each does as supplied 'out of the box' without any additional purchase or add on. As I said, each is capable of doing all it advertises. As the OP was about cost, that is what I meant as far as my prev post. All the other posts about 'what you need' are up to the purchaser, no better or worse in my opinion.
Quote:Is APCC is actually available? My understanding is that it is still in beta.I own a Mach 1 GTO and regularly use a Paramount ME. Both are terrific mounts. However, I'm thinking of buying a Paramount MX to replace the Mach 1 because:1) I prefer using a Mac and don't want to have to deal with an emulation layer. So even when APCC comes out it won't work for me. In any case, I like TheSkyX a lot.2) I appreciate being able to home the mount remotely, which is a feature built-in to the Paramounts (and I believe you can add this capability onto AP's larger mounts, but not the Mach-1 GTO). The Mach 1 mostly lives in an observatory and I occasionally run it remotely, even though most of the time I'm right next to it.3) I find the lack of basic pointing corrections (even something really simple to handle in a basic model, like a single non-orthogonality term) in the AP mount's hand controller disappointing. It's really the only aspect of the mount I actively don't like (the lack of a home switch is less of a big deal in a portable mount). If TheSkyX comes out for iOS with T-point (unclear to me what features will be in the iOS version of TheSkyX) then it could well be that the MX would have a truly fabulous hand controller! Anyway, aside from modelling in the hand controller the Mach 1 GTO is a brilliant mount for its weight class.4) I have been using T-point in one incarnation or another for 25 years on professional telescopes, and I like its basic philosophy (basing pointing corrections on coefficients of a physical geometrical/structural model, rather than minimizing errors on some more abstract transformations). Since T-point is integrated into TheSkyX and the Paramount mounts play so nicely with TheSkyX, an ME/MX + TheSkyX + T-point operate like a well integrated system. Of course one can use TheSkyX+T-point with AP mounts but it's less integrated (no Pro-Track, no Direct Guide). Maybe an AP mount + APCC will be similarly well-integrated as a system - though sadly I won't be able to use it day-to-day because I won't be able to run it on a Mac. In any case, I look forward to trying out APCC when it comes out, perhaps I'll run it on a virtual machine for a while just to check it out. I certainly trust Ray Gralak to deliver some nice software... PEMPro is terrific (wish I could get it on my Mac, even though I do my polar alignment with T-point these days, PEMPro is very cool).Bob
Quote:If you go by that definition then the MX is not ASCOM compatible out of the box (because you need a third party "add on"). The Bisque software had to be included with the Paramounts otherwise they wouldn't be very useful at all. So, I think it's pretty silly to exclude all the software one can use, or, in this case, *has* to be used if the mount is to do useful work.
Quote:it is interesting Bob because Chris Erickson who does a lot of work in Hawaii mentioned in another forum (Roboscopes on Yahoo) that all the big guys (i.e. the multi-meter telescopes) are now using Windows...
and yes i'm familiar with the astromatic stuff and galfit
getting that stuff running on windows is a complete PITA. i'm not a mac head so i use linux for that.
i long for the days of mature indi drivers. but even the AP indi driver has holes.
Quote:So where are we. My math shows an A-P 900 coming in over $9k to get to where the SB PMX is at it's sale price of $7k. Vastly different offerings and at least a $2k price difference.