Quote:

---

What are some of the small things that would need to be looked at, (improved), in the CGE? I have never used one, but won't rule out the possibility of getting one.

Thanks.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What are some of the small things that would need to be looked at, (improved), in the CGE? I have never used one, but won't rule out the possibility of getting one.

Thanks.

---

Mainly the external cables--like the dec cable. Because of the cable material used and the way they are connected, these are a source of constant trouble. Also, the limit switches. Other than that, especially with the new software, not much to nitpick about.

---

I'd like to see the clutch levers redone perhaps but that is about it.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Bobby;
Has there been discussion of a revised or updated GCE...I especially agree that if they changed the design to be a smaller, lower cost version of the CGE PRO...that would be a mount to want.

---

Jeff,

Not that I am aware of but it seems like a logical step with the release of the CGEM as well as the Pro. It would seem like a logical step for them to take and if any Ceelstron reps are listening.........Have at it!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

How about the meridian flip with CGE ?
Can you avoid it now ?

---

Tapio,

Welcome to CN's!

The meridian flip can not be avoided with the CGE due to it's limit switches. Although this can be an inconvenience even the mighty Paramount ME needs to do a flip

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What are some of the small things that would need to be looked at, (improved), in the CGE? I have never used one, but won't rule out the possibility of getting one.

Thanks.

---

Mainly the external cables--like the dec cable. Because of the cable material used and the way they are connected, these are a source of constant trouble. Also, the limit switches. Other than that, especially with the new software, not much to nitpick about.

---

I'd like to see the clutch levers redone perhaps but that is about it.

---

I would weigh in with a better hand control that would be more functional in really cold conditions... the LCD display is pretty much useless (and hence the entire mount) if/when temps get much below -5C or so...

I've asked my wife to knit me an HC cozy with holes for buttons and screen and into which I can easily slip a hand/toe warmer pack...

Other nits, not yet mentioned: the cable between the HC and the Pier needs to be about twice as long, and about 4 times as flexible (again in cold conditions).

Otherwise, its a great mount and pretty hard to beat in its price range...

Mine will probably ultimately get sold when I either go with an AP900/Mach1GTO or this beautiful looking CGE Pro model!

clear enough skies

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'll assume that one can buy better quality cables from somewhere? I suppose that won't change how they are connected to the mount. Do they simply get in the way of operation?

What are the limit switches and how do they work or not work? What do you do to get them going?

Thanks.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have two CGE mounts - they run about 15-25" peak-to-valley PE uncorrected. Using the PECTool I get about 5" P-V PE.

Mike

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have read that older CGE:s have a larger PE, so it seems that Celestron has made some improvements over the years.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Since I have never done astrophotography I probably should not even be commenting but I thought the amount of PE made no difference if you are using a CCD Autoguider. I thought the only problem is when you have a sudden big change in PE that can't be corrected quickly enough by the Autoguider. Isn't that true?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Since I have never done astrophotography I probably should not even be commenting but I thought the amount of PE made no difference if you are using a CCD Autoguider. I thought the only problem is when you have a sudden big change in PE that can't be corrected quickly enough by the Autoguider. Isn't that true?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Since I have never done astrophotography I probably should not even be commenting but I thought the amount of PE made no difference if you are using a CCD Autoguider. I thought the only problem is when you have a sudden big change in PE that can't be corrected quickly enough by the Autoguider. Isn't that true?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Short version... 1) PE matters. 2) Auto-guiding doesn't change #1

Regards,
Bert

---

Nevertheless, given good focus and collimation, autoguiding produces good images, just as manual guiding did before there was such a thing as PEC, and when 30-arc seconds was considered "dang good."



BUT...I do NOT think you can go wrong buying the best mount you can afford, up to and including AP and Bisque and beyond.

Edited by rmollise (01/23/09 05:51 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Since I have never done astrophotography I probably should not even be commenting but I thought the amount of PE made no difference if you are using a CCD Autoguider. I thought the only problem is when you have a sudden big change in PE that can't be corrected quickly enough by the Autoguider. Isn't that true?

---

Auto-guiding can only correct an error after the fact. By the time a guider sees an error and responds to it, your data has been, to one degree or another, corrupted. Recording PE and using a PEC to minimize it is an attempt to prevent errors before your data is corrupted. The smaller and more regular, i.e., predictable, the inherent PE of a mount is, the more effective PEC can be in minimizing it's effect.

In other words, no, auto-guiding is most definitely not a substitute for accurate tracking. That's why I asked about it. At least for imaging, a mount's PE is the measure of it's merit, IMHO. Things like poor cables, weak saddles, shaky tripods,gnarly knobs, or even suspect electronics can all be fixed more easily than a PE of > 25". That's not to say bad PE can't be fixed. I've done it myself on an Atlas. But... it took me several months of sometimes frustrating trial and error to get a 50% reduction. That shouldn't come as a surprise when you consider the number of components in a drive system and the huge difference teeny, tiny little imperfections in any single one of them can make.

Short version... 1) PE matters. 2) Auto-guiding doesn't change #1

Regards,
Bert

---

That's interesting, Bert. You and I seem to have had similar experiences but drawn different conclusions. I don't worry about the total amount of periodic error--any more than I worry about absolutely perfect polar alignment--because autoguiders seem to do a nice job of correcting for both periodic error and drift as long as the error is gradual and smooth. Of course you are correct that technically some error has already been introduced before an autoguider can address it, but as long as the error remains low enough to be masked by other sources of error such as seeing conditions, I don't worry about it.

That being said, I agree with you that there is no substitute for a good mount--smoothness, I believe, is of paramount importance--and total periodic error often correlates well with the quality of the mount.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The last CGE I purchased was mid year of 2008 and the measured PE out of the box, untouched was 12 arc seconds, peak to peak. Maybe I had a good one but that thing with a few PEC runs it was under 6 arc seconds.

In reality we need to stop comparing $3000 mounts to those that are $5000 and up.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

In reality we need to stop comparing $3000 mounts to those that are $5000 and up.

---

I agree with this. Because my AP1200 was in a class all by itself but that too also had PEC correction software available. But I will add that with a tad more "effort" from Celestron the 3K mount could easily compare to a 5K mount. After all what is really done to improve PEC on a CGE when you send it off for upgrading.... A really good cleaning to remove burrs and loose chips add in a slight smoothing of edges then assemble with care paying attention to torques and add quality lubricants and you have easily removed half the PE in a factory mount of today.

I know someone stated a price reduction of $500 would be nice and that would be nice, but I would also pay the $500 for the improvement above. I guess this is why there are businesses out there to do just this.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

A note to mention on the limit switches and the meridian flip issue. I sent an email to Celestron asking about some points mentioned here for an upgraded CGE and in the email I got, it was stated that the new hand controller upgrade software v4.15 allows the CGE and the CGE Pro to continue tracking to 20* past the meridian for both mounts.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

However, I think that the hibernate function ceases if unplugged from the power source. Is that correct? thanks

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

When it woke up, it thought it was yesterday 1-24-09 at 13.25.00 hrs,

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

There are at least two aftermarket possiblities to reduce PE, both around $500.
The tungsten disulfide treatment of the worm

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What are some of the small things that would need to be looked at, (improved), in the CGE? I have never used one, but won't rule out the possibility of getting one.

Thanks.

---

Mainly the external cables--like the dec cable. Because of the cable material used and the way they are connected, these are a source of constant trouble. Also, the limit switches. Other than that, especially with the new software, not much to nitpick about.

---

I wasnt too keen on the CGE external cables either. They seem abit too short to my standards. But on the whole the CGE is a capable mount and handles my TOA150 with ease. I have the recent software but havent had any issues so far in my limited viewing during the past year. I do wish it had a polar alignment scope in it though....

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are at least two aftermarket possiblities to reduce PE, both around $500.
The tungsten disulfide treatment of the worm

---

Most of us never heard about it. Can you give us some pointers, links?

---

http://www.arksky.org/supercharge.htm
http://www.telescopestabilitysystems.com/default.htm
http://lxd55.com/hypertune/

All 3 provide a hyper-tuning or supercharging service. I can not speak from experiance on any of these places and I don't know much more about them other than what I have read here. You should do your own research before jumping into any thing.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have read that older CGE:s have a larger PE, so it seems that Celestron has made some improvements over the years.

---

Not really. That's urban legend. I have one year old CGE and it has a PE of 20 arcsecs peak-to-valley.

---

This is not urban legend.

I have been following the CGE since the beginning. I bought an early CGE in 2003 and a second in 2006.

The early CGEs were showing PE of about 40 arc seconds, with a non-smooth curve that typically had a very steep section. I've seen data from lots of CGEs and all the early ones looked this way.

Somewhere around 2005, people started reporting a change in the PE magnitude and curve. Since that time, 20 arc seconds of PE with a very smooth curve is typical.

Both of my CGEs show PE behavior typical of when they were produced. I've collected PE data from them and posted Excel spreadsheets with the raw data and graphs. If you are a member of the Yahoo CGE Uncensored group, you can see the spreadsheets here.

I would like to point out that CGEs typically respond very well to autoguiding, even the older ones. The steep part of the slope in the PE curve on the older mounts is not so steep that it causes problems in this area.

If I were looking at a used CGE for imaging, I would (slightly) prefer one from 2006 or later - but I would definitely consider and older one in good condition. If you are considering a CGE for visual use, none of this PE stuff matters.

As long as I'm on the topic of buying a used CGE, one thing that you do want to look at is the hand controller version. The CGE originally shipped with a non-upgradable hand controller. New ones ship with a hand controller that has upgradable firmware. The newer firmware has radically improved goto performance over the older. I don't remember the dates when the switch over happened, but it is easy to tell the old from the new. If the firmware version is 3.x, it is an old hand controller. If the firmware version is 4.x, it is a newer one. Unlike the PE stuff above, this is more important to visual users than imagers. Imagers will typically run over a computer with NexRemote and skip the physical hand controller entirely. All versions of NexRemote can use both the old 3.x and newer 4.x firmware.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

This is not urban legend.

I have been following the CGE since the beginning. I bought an early CGE in 2003 and a second in 2006.

The early CGEs were showing PE of about 40 arc seconds, with a non-smooth curve that typically had a very steep section. I've seen data from lots of CGEs and all the early ones looked this way.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Now I'm in a quandary. I've been debating whether to settle for a CGEM to meet my immediate needs for astrophotography; or go with a CGE which would provide the ultimate capability for a "portable" setup. (There's no kill like overkill.) I don't need the CGE right away, but if it's discontinued that leaves only the G-11 in that price/capacity range, and I like the design of the CGE much better. Do I grab one of the last CGEs or wait to see if Celestron will release a replacement? So far I haven't seen any evidence of a CGE successor.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The CGE has an uncertain future. For the moment is out of production, but maybe Celestron guys will be smart enough to decide to continue it in this form or in an upgraded model because the CGE is the heaviest mount that can be setup by a single person, so it is both at the limit of portability and is a good mount for a permanent observatory. But manufacturing a new mount and mass producing it would last at least 1 year, so if you want one in the next months/year buy it now while you can.

---

I don't think most folks will have any trouble setting up the CGE Pro, though they have to break it down first to do it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Celestron revamp the CGE and move its manufacture to China. But, frankly, if I wanted a go-to mount in this class, the G11 Gemini is mucho similar. Only problem bein' you don't get the OTA - mount package price break you do with CGEs.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The CGE has an uncertain future. For the moment is out of production, but maybe Celestron guys will be smart enough to decide to continue it in this form or in an upgraded model because the CGE is the heaviest mount that can be setup by a single person, so it is both at the limit of portability and is a good mount for a permanent observatory. But manufacturing a new mount and mass producing it would last at least 1 year, so if you want one in the next months/year buy it now while you can.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If the CGE Pro mount head could be split into two lighter parts the way astrophysics does some of their mounts. And if they would drop the price of the CGE Pro a thousand dollars, then would anyone really care if the CGE was gone?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Why not say, while supplies last as we are... a) making a newer replacement and the older one is discounted or b)this unit is being phased out and there will be no more so buy now.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Just my opinion, but I find the CGE to be a very nice
clean looking mount, where as the CGEM and CGE Pro are
butt-ugly.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I was debating about going to NEAF this year but I just may go now to get a look at a CGE Pro in person. I wonder if someone will have one on the floor?

---

I'd guess Celestron will...

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

As I posted a few days ago, the CGE is currently not being discontinued. There may have initially been plans but as of right now it's here to stay.

---

<speculation hat on> How unfortunate. I'd be all over a baby CGE-Pro with updated interfaces. So if this is correct then we will have a gap in availability for while as it seemed C had planned to discontinue the CGE but it seems without a replacement. So there will be the time lost while not making any new ones before they make any more new ones. Because if they had planned on a replacement then one would assume some tooling etc had already been completed on the new CGE and was near production. Otherwise why plan on a year without a mount to cover the hole left without the CGE. If they can decide just like that, then there was no replacement coming down the pike and there would have been a huge hole in the C lineup.
<speculation hat off>

Now I am confused as to what to do. Maybe it is best to not do anything at this point. I like the new CGE-Pro if is as advertised but like the CGE for cost and transportability. A baby CGE-Pro would have been a shoe in for sure.

FWIW Bobby, I hope you are wrong.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would like to see what would happen if Scott L. got off his butt and either redid the gemini system or offered a completetly new GoTo solution for the G11.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

FWIW, I kinda hope they keep the CGE the way it is.......Solid, dependable and affordable.

---

Ok, that is just silly, Bobby. I don't think anyone was suggesting they make the mount not solid or not dependable or not affordable. I would submit that, that is suggested without saying and why the discussion was around a gap in the line up.

I enjoyed my CGE and was very pleased with it. I am in a position to be shopping for a new mount as should be apparent from my comments. The CGE is a front runner, even in it's current form, after a trip to the Doctor. The CGE-Pro is a contender for the imaging points. A new and improved CGE with everything the same but with USB and some meridian control would be a no-brainer for me. And to clarify, Would I pay $500 more for better out of box PEC and smoother operation and a no tools setup. Yes.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would like to see what would happen if Scott L. got off his butt and either redid the gemini system or offered a completetly new GoTo solution for the G11.

---

The Gemini controller is much more advanced than the Nexstar controller and maybe that's where the problem lies. Most folks are not that computer savvy to learn how to use it.

---

I'd consider myself plenty tech savvy, considering computer code I write puts food on the table. But, as much of a geek that I am, I don't want to fight a controller while under the stars that much. The NexStar and Autostar II handboxes provide very nice touches that the Gemini can't do with its handbox design (shortcuts to common catalogs, and quick number entry for example) which make finding and slewing to targets quick and easy.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Ok, that is just silly, Bobby. I don't think anyone was suggesting they make the mount not solid or not dependable or not affordable.

---

I didn't say anybody was My point was, sometimes some of the good points about the CGE are lost or sacrificed when a mount is updated to include bells and whistles. KISS is still one of the best concepts going

Quote:

---

A new and improved CGE with everything the same but with USB and some meridian control would be a no-brainer for me.

---

As far as USB I would ask "For What?" Certainly not motor cables. You also loose the locking ability of RJ connectors not to mention having to use expensive USB repeaters to go over 12' if your looking to control the mount remotely.

I agree that having to fumble with an allen key in the dark to do polar alignment adjustments is a dumb engineering thought but it also offers a solid method. I can adjust the AZ or ALT with a CGE fully loaded using an allen wrench, something that just wasn't possible with my EQ6 and it's "tool less" knobs.

As for the meridian control........If a Paramount ME has to do a flip

Quote:

---

Would I pay $500 more for better out of box PEC and smoother operation and a no tools setup. Yes.

---

Adding $500 to the cost of a CGE would only put it further out of reach. The CGE sits at a price point where a lot of people will go one step further up the ladder to get the improved performance of a higher priced mount, especially if buying used. A used MI-250 with GoTo or a TAK NJP can be had for around $5000 and both will walk all over a CGE from a performance and build quality standpoint. This brings up a good point though. If celestron took a little bit of time and did a rigorous QC on every CGE manufactured that included properly setting up worm mesh you'd see a big improvement in performance at a minimal cost. Improving PE by upgrading gears etc. can add significantly to the price. Quality gears cost money, even when purchased in quantity.

The best thing Celestron could do is drop the price of the Pro to $4000 for a mount only package. At that point I don't think they could build them fast enough

CS

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I don't want to fight a controller while under the stars that much. The NexStar and Autostar II handboxes provide very nice touches that the Gemini can't do with its handbox design (shortcuts to common catalogs, and quick number entry for example) which make finding and slewing to targets quick and easy.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I could not disagree more, but that's just me.

The fact I need to buy a dongle and contend with even more esoteric driver issues I find ridiculous and really cannot think of a parallel in any of my other interests. That NO computer I can buy will work 'out of the box'...

We are talking ZERO. I think if every other manufacturer of every other gadget available even very inexpensive ~$15 can do it - mount manufacturers at several thousand $$ per pop could pull it off.

We need to stop making excuses for them. Interesting that we require so much of all our software and gadget providers and yet when it comes to this hobby - we just make excuses for them. I suppose it could be even more ridiculous... thank goodness it doesn't use two cans and a string

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'd rather ask why the computer manufacturers fail to put serial ports on laptops. It isn't difficult.

---

5v VS. 12V. Green vs. Non-Green. Many laptops don't have the reserve to last powering 12v to a device.

I hear what you are saying Chris but from a end user standpoint, what you are saying is greek and borders on gibberish to the casual user. (Not dissing what you said by the way).

I know about the USB issues and Serial is so clean to talk to but until a replacement comes about I would think the hardware guys will have to support the interfaces that are being sold, in the millions. Particularly when the serial, despite its simple beauty, isn't being supported by the computer assemblers. Quite frankly I'd like to see the basic parallel come back or HP-IB or some other always worked system.

As a side note, I think serial died because of the OS and not the hardware. Windoze likes to "own" everything and serial ports don't work well being owned and turned on and off whenever.

So I guess I agree with you but what is the answer? Maybe having the mount mfg's provide a serial/USB cable as part of their package and provide their own set of drivers based upon the mount requirements.

Ahh what do I know?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Bobby - laptops and desktops for that matter stopped shipping with serial and ports some time ago - we all know this. You ask USB 'for what' - I assume you are kidding here...

---

Quote:

---

ummmm how about all your other computer periphs - you do use USB? I am not saying it is a requirement for data throughput to the mount, but really, I ask 'serial - what for?'

---

Yes I do use USB for all my COMPUTER peripherals but the last time I looked my mount wasn't considered a desktop peripheral Why serial you ask? Maybe it's the ease of programming for it. Not needing a driver for it. Unequaled compatibility. Not hampered by 12' cables and the need for expensive repeater cables.

Quote:

---

Just curious as you must purchase something extra to get any 'modern' computer to talk to these mounts... not as if it would be a brain breaker to have included it (USB -even slow USB) in design cycle, at least for computer connection... And of course it is not included and last I looked was abs ridiculous expensive to buy the dongle from Chinestron... (thankfully others have this for sale far cheaper with Vista drivers) and then there's the Vista issue with the drivers... this isn't a MS issue or a computer manufacturer issue, it is a mount manufacturer issue.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Personally, if we move away from Serial, I'd go for Ethernet.

---

Hah! I was considering dropping my on this yesterday, but held off. Ethernet (i.e. 10/100-base-T) is certainly a great way to go. Sockets are pretty easy to program on any OS these days, and little net modules aren't all that expensive (though typically more than the cost of a USB to serial adapter, on whichever side of the cable you choose). At any rate, it would definitely resolve some of the concerns related to USB drivers, although it might require a bit more savvy for those connecting to it, especially if they have to switch between that and a normal network connection. Still, longer cable lengths, locking cords, etc. would address a number of the other complaints mentioned as well. Of course once you take that step, why not just embed Wi-Fi?!!

Beo

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The CGE is still offered. It will likely be discontinued, as the CGE Pro has succeeded it.

Since it has been succeeded, it's a good year to pick up the CGE. I've heard of them bieng sold for less than 2500.

We will support the mount for years after it is discontinued.

Clear skies,
Name removed
Celestron Technical Support

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

As far as the "dongles" go I assume you mean a serial to USB cable? I paid $9 for mine and it worked fine. Than again, I satyed away from the "Kool Aid" and never went to Vista. XPPro works perfectly fine for me.

---

I've got two dongles that work fine in Vista and Win7. One won't work with the CGE for upgrades, or for the programming cable, but that is the dongle's fault. Both work great on the Mac via Starry Night to control the CGE as well.

As for the topic...

While I am sad that this means the G11 is now alone in its class, I've been very pleased with the CGE so far. The one I got will probably be kept around until it dies.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I sent an email to Celestron to get a straight answer about the future of the CGE.

I got this email:

Quote:

---

The CGE is still offered. It will likely be discontinued, as the CGE Pro has succeeded it.
Since it has been succeeded, it's a good year to pick up the CGE. I've heard of them bieng sold for less than 2500.
We will support the mount for years after it is discontinued.
Clear skies,
Name removed
Celestron Technical Support

---

There it is direct from Celestron. The CGE does not have a extended future in Celstron's lineup. So a great time to get some great prices on the CGE and C will continue to support it.

So the speculation is over and there will not be a change to the CGE to update the mount.

---

Actually, that isn't an answer at all! With the qualifying words, "...will likely be discontinued..." the person that answered the question has provided ample wiggle-room so that anything that happens is covered. Now, if they'd said "...is definitely discontinued..." then you'd have a definite answer. But they didn't say that. We're right back to where we were, in my opinion.

Post Extras: