Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Building 10Micron mount models

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
723 replies to this topic

#576 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 05 December 2020 - 06:12 PM

I've been using the official driver (never had an issue) and in fact, if the clouds go away, tonight I'm going to test with the latest version of the driver (1.6) and ASCOM 6.5SP1. 

 

I haven't run the conformance test yet but the driver's release notes have this note: "This driver is developed following the ASCOM Platform 6 specification, ITelescopeV3 Interface, based on the Local Server template. See the ASCOM Initiative web site http://www.ascom-standards.org/ for more information. If you find any non-conformity, contact 10micron." so I'd say they care.


 

#577 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 05 December 2020 - 08:09 PM

A follow-up to the earlier discussion about the custom tracking rate set after using Model Creator. I've just checked, it happened again (I'm using the latest, v2.5.9.1) and then fetched the configuration with 10Micron's Mount Configurator and it shows the custom rate to be 0 (presumably the same as sidereal, as it's tracking correctly). Odd, but at least benign.

 

One day when it's warmer I'll repeat the test and sniff the communication, to figure out whether there's any command to set it so. ModelCreator's log , even in debug mode, does not show any indication of this.

 

tracking.png

 

 


 

#578 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,333
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 05 December 2020 - 08:55 PM

All of these model maker sofwares are supposed to do only one thing.  Automate the process of syncing so the internal computer can compute  the error and use that data to create a model.

 

That's it.  People like Tonk that do it manually by slewing to a star, centering it a high mag reticle eyepiece, and manually syncing each and every point, would have no better or worse model than those of us that just want to click on a few buttons on some software and automate the same thing while we make coffee.

 

The 10Micron does not put its tracking state into custom when you do it manually.  Therefore, automation software should not either.

 

Again, you are only feeding the mount's computer raw data and then it decides what to do with that data.

 

Just check your tracking rate and make sure it is sidereal before you start imaging.


 

#579 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 05 December 2020 - 09:58 PM

I'm aware of all you wrote and I completely agree. I'm just curious why the rate is set to custom when MC's author stated he was not setting it either. Another time I'll sniff the network traffic between MC and the mount and that should settle it, either way.


 

#580 Brule

Brule

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2019
  • Loc: St. Louis, MO

Posted 05 December 2020 - 11:15 PM

My question is whether the model building that is the topic of this thread would be prohibitive.   With a normal equatorial you must polar align and get guiding going (I use NINA and PHD2).   In principle this is quick to get going.  In practice I have to budget time for being an idiot and forgetting to connect a cable somewhere.  Start up on the first time at a new location always seems to involve some head scratching.

I setup every time and just do my PA with SharpCap before building a full model (no mini-models needed), and it gets me very close. Usually my model says I'm around 1 arc min of error, sometimes less. It's super fast, takes me maybe 3-5 minutes. Then I run a 60 pt model and go do something else, come back in 30 min. I don't feel I really lose any time. I usually image around 7min unguided subs and my stars seem great, at least according to pixinsight measurements, and definitely better than when I had a non-premium with phd2.

 

Anyway, as someone who went from a non-premium mount to the 10 Micron, I can say my routine still feels fast. Of course, when you start out it will be slower but then you learn some and get a rhythm down, it speeds right up. Take that for what you will.


 

#581 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 05 December 2020 - 11:26 PM

A follow-up to the earlier discussion about the custom tracking rate set after using Model Creator. I've just checked, it happened again (I'm using the latest, v2.5.9.1) and then fetched the configuration with 10Micron's Mount Configurator and it shows the custom rate to be 0 (presumably the same as sidereal, as it's tracking correctly). Odd, but at least benign.

 

One day when it's warmer I'll repeat the test and sniff the communication, to figure out whether there's any command to set it so. ModelCreator's log , even in debug mode, does not show any indication of this.

 

attachicon.giftracking.png

Thanks much.  Very helpful  Can I ask where one gets Model Creator v2.5.9.1?  I've just checked the astromi.ch website, and the version there is 2.5.9.0...


 

#582 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 05 December 2020 - 11:57 PM

It's a test version and I see now that Martin hasn't published it yet; the only difference from 2.5.9.0 is how it downloads Earth rotation data as there have been some changes to the sites where that data is made available. For modeling, you can use 2.5.9.0 equally well.


 

#583 nathanm

nathanm

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2020

Posted 06 December 2020 - 12:40 AM

How any company has avoided using a test suite thats given to them on a plate - is frankly bizzare. It tells me its likely a small or even one-person development effort by someone not used to unit testing and continuous integration testing and that they haven't fully read or understood the ASCOM developers guide lines.

 

Well said - that is pretty much exactly what I concluded after dealing with them.  I am pretty sure in both cases it is just one guy.  According to my testing one of the drivers was not thread safe and in reporting that to the company I had to explain that concept.  That isn't confidence inspiring.  Oddly, the same company insisted it had to run as administrator (effectively, at kernel level).   It was very clear that software was not considered central - which is an odd thing these days.


 

#584 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6,234
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 06 December 2020 - 04:19 AM

It doesn't matter how you polar align, or in some respects if you polar align.  Polar alignment is something people with the average single-axis tracking mount (this does not include premium mounts) have to obsess about because those mounts often tend to not guide well also.  That means that polar alignment must be maximized in order to minimize guiding movements.  With a dual-axis tracking mount both axes track the mount based on the model to a precision that is better than many mounts can obtain guiding.  The only problem gets to be that the further off of polar aligned the mount is, the more field rotation will occur.  But this is easily compensated for through the use different chip and pixel sizes combined with proper exposure times.  There are calculators out there to determine those things.  

 

I use the mini-model, polar align, full-model approach simply because I've been doing that from the start and don't want to add another piece of software into the mix of stuff I already use.  If you use a different method to polar align, then you can just skip the mini-model.  Either way, it's pretty quick and easy to do and does not have to be agonized over.


 

#585 TestnDoc

TestnDoc

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2009
  • Loc: USandA

Posted 06 December 2020 - 10:54 AM

I'm aware of all you wrote and I completely agree. I'm just curious why the rate is set to custom when MC's author stated he was not setting it either. Another time I'll sniff the network traffic between MC and the mount and that should settle it, either way.

This happens to me every time I use Model Creator. Has to be a bug, setting the drive to custom. MC does it after it solves the first alignment point. I know this, by watching the virtual hand controller. At first I thought I had picked a comet or something weird, so deleted and moved to another position. Same result. Never have this issue with Pers ModelMaker. 


 

#586 mworion

mworion

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Hohenbrunn / Munich

Posted 06 December 2020 - 11:23 AM

Hi,

 

being the author of MW4 I can say that there is no command in MW4 to change the mount to custom tracking. I never experienced this so far. 

 

Just for information:

- During model build I switch Dual Tracking off (it's a setting) and restore the status before after modeling.

- Polar align with MW4 (based on the features provided by the mount) could be done by just selecting any star, slew there and centering it manually (mechanically). For sure you need a existing model (a small will do)

 

Michel 


 

#587 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 06 December 2020 - 11:36 AM

Thanks, interesting. I've just checked last night's logs and according to them, MC is supposed to set the sidereal speed (see the red lines). However, the log does not show the actual raw command sent to the mount so there's still the possibility of a bug in MC. Raw commands are very short and typos are possible. Sidereal tracking is :TQ# (also :RT2# in the extended protocol), custom is :TM#. In fact, such a typo would also explain why the custom rate is still identical with the sidereal as shown in message 577: since it wasn't intended to be set, the commands to set the actual custom rate are never sent.

 

The next time I'll image I'll watch the network traffic during modeling and see the actual raw commands sent.

 

19:19:27: General - Notice - Starting modelling run...
19:19:27: General - Debug - Clear existing alignment: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Include base points: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Include refinement points: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Exclude successful points: False
19:19:27: Mount - Info - Deleting active model
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :delalig# -> has Reply: True
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: #
19:19:27: General - Info - ====================================
19:19:27: General - Notice - Processing point  1 of 16
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Stop tracking
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Refraction updates are disabled
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRTMP# -> has Reply: True
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: -003.9#
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRPRS# -> has Reply: True
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 0996.9#
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Starting slew... Az: 330.4 El: 60.5
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Slewing to az: 330.361824855794, el:60.5100463678516
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Waiting for mount to finish slewing .
19:19:40: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:19:40: Mount - Info - Setting new drive rate: driveSidereal
19:19:41: Mount - Debug - Start tracking
19:19:41: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:19:41: Mount - Info - Settling... 3.6s
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting ra: RightAscension
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting dec: Declination
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting pier side: SideOfPier
19:19:45: Camera - Debug - Camera settings:

[...]
19:19:45: Camera - Info - Exposing...
19:19:45: Camera - Info - Waiting for Image to become available
19:19:55: Camera - Info - Saving image...
19:19:56: Camera - Debug - Converting image to 16bit...
19:19:56: Camera - Debug - Conversion complete, took 580ms
19:19:56: General - Debug - Writing image buffer to disk...
19:19:57: General - Debug - Writing complete, took 169ms
19:19:57: Solver - Notice - ASTAP starting solve...
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Creating Platesolve DTO
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Configured focal length: 880
19:19:57: General - Debug - Getting pixel size from either manual configuration or from FITS Image
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key XPIXSZ of type dtdouble from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: General - Debug - Pixel size read from FITS-File: 3.76um
19:19:57: General - Debug - Final pixelsize: 3.76
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Getting sidereal time from mount
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GS# -> has Reply: True
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 00:03:14.52#
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key NAXIS1 of type dtint from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key NAXIS2 of type dtint from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - ExeFile: C:\Program Files\astap\astap.exe
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - BlindSolve: False
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Arguments: -f "C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit" -z 0 -ra 21.63473 -spd 155.6639 -fov 1.02894109090909
19:19:59: Solver - Info - ASTAP successfully solved image
19:19:59: General - Debug - Setting solve result to: True
19:19:59: Solver - Debug - Transforming J2000 to JNow
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Transforming complete, J2000RA -> 21.6391751245923, J2000DEC -> 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Image-Center Ra: 21.6391751245923
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Image-Center Dec: 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Mount-Ra: 21.63473
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Mount-Dec: 65.6639
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Image center at Ra: 21°38'21.0" Dec: 65°45'39.9"
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Ra  diff 16.0024485322211"
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Dec diff 349.842682915812"
19:20:00: General - Debug - Syncing point to mount
19:20:00: Mount - Info - Syncing to coordinates ra 21.6391751245923 dec 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :getalst# -> has Reply: True
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 1#
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :getain# -> has Reply: True
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: E#
19:20:00: General - Info - ====================================
19:20:00: General - Notice - Processing point  2 of 16
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Stop tracking
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Refraction updates are disabled
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRTMP# -> has Reply: True
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: -003.9#
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRPRS# -> has Reply: True
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 0996.9#
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Starting slew... Az: 43.0 El: 65.5
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Slewing to az: 43.0414263240692, el:65.5177743431221
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Waiting for mount to finish slewing .
19:20:21: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:20:21: Mount - Info - Setting new drive rate: driveSidereal
19:20:22: Mount - Debug - Start tracking
19:20:22: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking

 

This happens to me every time I use Model Creator. Has to be a bug, setting the drive to custom. MC does it after it solves the first alignment point. I know this, by watching the virtual hand controller. At first I thought I had picked a comet or something weird, so deleted and moved to another position. Same result. Never have this issue with Pers ModelMaker. 


 

#588 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 06 December 2020 - 12:02 PM

A follow-up to the earlier discussion about the custom tracking rate set after using Model Creator. I've just checked, it happened again (I'm using the latest, v2.5.9.1) and then fetched the configuration with 10Micron's Mount Configurator and it shows the custom rate to be 0 (presumably the same as sidereal, as it's tracking correctly). Odd, but at least benign.

 

One day when it's warmer I'll repeat the test and sniff the communication, to figure out whether there's any command to set it so. ModelCreator's log , even in debug mode, does not show any indication of this.

 

attachicon.giftracking.png

Not that confirmation was needed, but I can confirm the same.


 

#589 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 06 December 2020 - 12:57 PM

A new question for the experts here.  Last night I did the standard small model, slew and align, small model, slew and align, big model approach.  Initial PA error was roughly 1.5 degrees.  After the second small model run and alignment, I ran a large model (46 points).  The RMS was fine, thought not great 6.9".  The polar alignment error was shocking - over 2 degrees.  Polar alignment after 5 points was reported as being less than 30", but grew progressively as the model was created until it reached 2 degrees+.  

 

I regularly get below 30" in PA using the above technique, and so am at a loss to understand what happened here.  Nothing about my setup has changed mechanically, and the only software item I have changed was updating the ASCOM driver for the mount to the just released version.

 

If it helps, some summary data on the model below.

 

Any ideas?

Attached Thumbnails

  • Capture.PNG

 

#590 yzhzhang

yzhzhang

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,060
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2012
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 06 December 2020 - 01:34 PM

A new question for the experts here.  Last night I did the standard small model, slew and align, small model, slew and align, big model approach.  Initial PA error was roughly 1.5 degrees.  After the second small model run and alignment, I ran a large model (46 points).  The RMS was fine, thought not great 6.9".  The polar alignment error was shocking - over 2 degrees.  Polar alignment after 5 points was reported as being less than 30", but grew progressively as the model was created until it reached 2 degrees+.  

 

I regularly get below 30" in PA using the above technique, and so am at a loss to understand what happened here.  Nothing about my setup has changed mechanically, and the only software item I have changed was updating the ASCOM driver for the mount to the just released version.

 

If it helps, some summary data on the model below.

 

Any ideas?

By "small model" do you mean 5 points? and by "slew and align" do you mean Menu --> Alignment --> Polar Align --> Choose a star, mount slews and offsets, and you manually center it back via Alt/Az knobs?

 

I think 5 points are not enough to pick up the PA error accurately, so your "slew and align" based on that might be off. I usually do 15~20 points as my "small model", and make sure you have 8~10 points spread on both sides of the meridian.

 

Yizhou


 

#591 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 06 December 2020 - 02:37 PM

By small I mean 12 points. By slew and align, yes I mean exactly that.
 

#592 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6,234
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 06 December 2020 - 04:05 PM

Do you mean the reported polar alignment error after running only five points of a model?  If that i[s] the case, you need to ignore that kind of thing.  Watching the polar alignment or RMS numbers as things go along is not helpful and generally leads to worrying about things that will be completely different at the completion of a "full" model.  If you watch the reported RMS of each additional point as the model runs, you will begin to think that the RMS is terrible when in fact, by the end of the model run, the RMS is just fine.  When you are having an actual problem with something, then watching the numbers may be of some limited help, otherwise just avert your eyes and let the software and mount do its thing.

 

6.9 is not a bad RMS.  Per Frajvall, an expert at modeling, always said that anything below and RMS of about 10 was fine in the majority of cases.  Spending time getting even lower ends up being a matter of either over pruning the model or simply diminishing returns.

 

Something else.  I wrote a post in response to airscottdenning's earlier post and I am seeing the same thing here.  When you see a linear trend in the graphic representation of the model points, there is most likely something moving in one plane on the mount and might be impacting your model results.  I experience this last year when working with a TAK 106 that should have modeled very well but wasn't.  When I finally noticed the trend in the data, I realized that something must have been moving back and forth rather than just randomly.  I went out to the observatory and started looking for something moving back and finally found that the draw tube on the TAK focuser was able to move back and forth in one plane.  When the focuser was locked down, the problem went away.  Of course, it wasn't possible to use auto focusing then.

 

While mccomiskey's points are not as bad as airscottdenning's there is still a fairly evident trend visible on both graphs.  When a system is very rigid, the points should be gather around the center point of the graphs in a somewhat random pattern (perfect rigidity would place everything at the center point).  There will be some thinning of points near the poles since model points should be avoided in those areas, but the general trend should be points centered around the central point of the graphs.  In the end, that can or will be something that will raise the final RMS numbers.


Edited by EFT, 06 December 2020 - 11:01 PM.

 

#593 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 06 December 2020 - 04:52 PM

EFT,

 

Hello!  I have been reading your posts for years, to the benefit of my education,  and am delighted to finally have an interaction.

 

Good advice on watching the sausage making.  I will avert my eyes in the future.

 

But RMS was not really my focus (I recognize that sub 7" is pretty good, and am usually successful in avoiding the temptation to chase the lower numbers.

 

My concern was the bizarre behavior of the PA.

 

I ran a 12 point model.  It said the alignment was out by 1.5 degrees.  I slewed to a star using the Polar Align routine in the hand controller and physically adjusted the mount to line up the star quite precisely at high zoom.  I then ran a second 12 point model, which told me the polar alignment was off by roughly 1.5 minutes (a little less).  This was surprising.  Usually, I get it to 30" or so doing this.  So, I repeated the slew and align process, this time using a different star for the alignment.  I then ran a 46 point model.  It gave me a polar align error greater than 2 minutes.  

 

I've never had a situation where the polar align error stays so large and gets bigger with multiple attempted alignments.  Just wondering if anyone has encountered this before.

 

On the RMS front, I see the linear trend in the data, but am unsure what could be causing it.  I have a Tak106 refractor mounted to a dovetail plate with a second dovetail plate on top of the rings to increase rigidity.  Focuser is a Moonlite nitecrawler, which I assume is unlikely to be slipping.  I only have one cable coming of the mount, which is the Eagle3 power cable.  I will play with it tonight to see if I can identify anything that my be moving.  If not, I will post a picture of the set up in the hopes someone can help me chase this Gremlin....


 

#594 Tonk

Tonk

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9,453
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Leeds, UK, 54N

Posted 06 December 2020 - 05:38 PM

Focuser is a Moonlite nitecrawler, which I assume is unlikely to be slipping.


This sort of focuser problem is NOT caused by slippage - but by a lateral movement. That is the barrel is not being evenly gripped around its circumference and there is a hinge plane where the barrel can rock - and the amount rocked can be very very small and only show up in model analysis.

 

A useful "small" model is over 20 points - evenly spread. Below 20 and the model has significant inaccuracies.

A polar align error of 2 arc minutes is NOT a problem. Dual tracking deals with it very very well. The only side effect will be field rotation. If you are concerned then use a field rotation calculator to find your exposure limit. Its likley to be in the multiple 10's of minutes depending on focal length and sensor pixel size

http://celestialwond...xErrorCalc.html


 


Edited by Tonk, 06 December 2020 - 05:42 PM.

 

#595 magsterone

magsterone

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, AL

Posted 06 December 2020 - 06:02 PM

I have a similar problem recently where the PA kept increasing no matter what I did. I took the scope off of the mount and found a loose screw on the forward ring and then I redid the accessories on the upper dovetail, I.e. mini pc, Pegasus powerbox v2 and the portable he. I tightened everything up and redid the modeling and my PA went about 2’ to 6” and rms is about 25” which for me is great. I have a moonlite focuser also.
 

#596 mccomiskey

mccomiskey

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017

Posted 06 December 2020 - 06:47 PM

Tonk, Ranger 4,

 

Thanks both for the input.  I will be increasing the initial size of the model to 30 points in the future.  And, I will be taking everything off the rig and rechecking that everything is tight.  May be that the colder weather or just use has loosened things up.

 

Also aware that dual tracking will compensate for the polar error, and in particular at my focal length and pixel size (530/9u), field rotation isn't a problem.  I honed in on this issue, only because it was going in the wrong direction and when I see that, I worry it may be a symptom of a bigger issue. 

 

Regards,

 

Mark


 

#597 TestnDoc

TestnDoc

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2009
  • Loc: USandA

Posted 06 December 2020 - 08:26 PM

Thanks, interesting. I've just checked last night's logs and according to them, MC is supposed to set the sidereal speed (see the red lines). However, the log does not show the actual raw command sent to the mount so there's still the possibility of a bug in MC. Raw commands are very short and typos are possible. Sidereal tracking is :TQ# (also :RT2# in the extended protocol), custom is :TM#. In fact, such a typo would also explain why the custom rate is still identical with the sidereal as shown in message 577: since it wasn't intended to be set, the commands to set the actual custom rate are never sent.

 

The next time I'll image I'll watch the network traffic during modeling and see the actual raw commands sent.

 

19:19:27: General - Notice - Starting modelling run...
19:19:27: General - Debug - Clear existing alignment: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Include base points: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Include refinement points: True
19:19:27: General - Debug - Exclude successful points: False
19:19:27: Mount - Info - Deleting active model
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :delalig# -> has Reply: True
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: #
19:19:27: General - Info - ====================================
19:19:27: General - Notice - Processing point  1 of 16
19:19:27: Mount - Debug - Stop tracking
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Refraction updates are disabled
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRTMP# -> has Reply: True
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: -003.9#
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRPRS# -> has Reply: True
19:19:28: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 0996.9#
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Starting slew... Az: 330.4 El: 60.5
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Slewing to az: 330.361824855794, el:60.5100463678516
19:19:28: Mount - Info - Waiting for mount to finish slewing .
19:19:40: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:19:40: Mount - Info - Setting new drive rate: driveSidereal
19:19:41: Mount - Debug - Start tracking
19:19:41: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:19:41: Mount - Info - Settling... 3.6s
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting ra: RightAscension
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting dec: Declination
19:19:45: Mount - Debug - Getting pier side: SideOfPier
19:19:45: Camera - Debug - Camera settings:

[...]
19:19:45: Camera - Info - Exposing...
19:19:45: Camera - Info - Waiting for Image to become available
19:19:55: Camera - Info - Saving image...
19:19:56: Camera - Debug - Converting image to 16bit...
19:19:56: Camera - Debug - Conversion complete, took 580ms
19:19:56: General - Debug - Writing image buffer to disk...
19:19:57: General - Debug - Writing complete, took 169ms
19:19:57: Solver - Notice - ASTAP starting solve...
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Creating Platesolve DTO
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Configured focal length: 880
19:19:57: General - Debug - Getting pixel size from either manual configuration or from FITS Image
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key XPIXSZ of type dtdouble from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: General - Debug - Pixel size read from FITS-File: 3.76um
19:19:57: General - Debug - Final pixelsize: 3.76
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Getting sidereal time from mount
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GS# -> has Reply: True
19:19:57: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 00:03:14.52#
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key NAXIS1 of type dtint from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: General - Debug - Trying to get value for key NAXIS2 of type dtint from file C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - ExeFile: C:\Program Files\astap\astap.exe
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - BlindSolve: False
19:19:57: Solver - Debug - Arguments: -f "C:\Users\r\Documents\Astromi\ModelCreator\Temp\ModelCreator_20201205_191945811.fit" -z 0 -ra 21.63473 -spd 155.6639 -fov 1.02894109090909
19:19:59: Solver - Info - ASTAP successfully solved image
19:19:59: General - Debug - Setting solve result to: True
19:19:59: Solver - Debug - Transforming J2000 to JNow
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Transforming complete, J2000RA -> 21.6391751245923, J2000DEC -> 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Image-Center Ra: 21.6391751245923
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Image-Center Dec: 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Mount-Ra: 21.63473
19:20:00: Solver - Debug - Mount-Dec: 65.6639
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Image center at Ra: 21°38'21.0" Dec: 65°45'39.9"
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Ra  diff 16.0024485322211"
19:20:00: Solver - Info - Dec diff 349.842682915812"
19:20:00: General - Debug - Syncing point to mount
19:20:00: Mount - Info - Syncing to coordinates ra 21.6391751245923 dec 65.7610785230322
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :getalst# -> has Reply: True
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 1#
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :getain# -> has Reply: True
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: E#
19:20:00: General - Info - ====================================
19:20:00: General - Notice - Processing point  2 of 16
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Stop tracking
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Refraction updates are disabled
19:20:00: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRTMP# -> has Reply: True
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: -003.9#
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Sending raw command (string) to mount:  :GRPRS# -> has Reply: True
19:20:01: Mount - Debug - Reply from mount: 0996.9#
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Starting slew... Az: 43.0 El: 65.5
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Slewing to az: 43.0414263240692, el:65.5177743431221
19:20:01: Mount - Info - Waiting for mount to finish slewing .
19:20:21: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking
19:20:21: Mount - Info - Setting new drive rate: driveSidereal
19:20:22: Mount - Debug - Start tracking
19:20:22: Mount - Debug - Checking if mount is tracking sideral: Tracking

I noticed the exact same thing when I looked at my logs. Has to be a bug. Hopefully an easy update. 


 

#598 FredOS

FredOS

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2017

Posted 07 December 2020 - 09:52 AM

Hi,

 

being the author of MW4 I can say that there is no command in MW4 to change the mount to custom tracking. I never experienced this so far. 

 

Just for information:

- During model build I switch Dual Tracking off (it's a setting) and restore the status before after modeling.

- Polar align with MW4 (based on the features provided by the mount) could be done by just selecting any star, slew there and centering it manually (mechanically). For sure you need a existing model (a small will do)

 

Michel 

Michel,

I was wondering if the stars that are pre-selected for polar Align can be replaced with any stars. For some reason (maybe a misunderstanding), I thought that these stars were recorded within 10Micron to a much higher degree of precision for positioning which would enable better polar alignment. But you seem to indicate one could choose any high mag star in fact ? That would be great as in some cases, the list doesn't provide me with a good target considering various obstacles around me.

 

Thank you


 

#599 Tonk

Tonk

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9,453
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Leeds, UK, 54N

Posted 07 December 2020 - 11:04 AM

The automated mount building controller softwares such as ModelMaker, ModelCreator and MountWizzard all use imaging and plate solving to fix the actual pointing position of the mount. - the mount itself is not pointing at a specific star but at a selected position dictated by the model builder software.

The reserved higher precision stars presented in the handset model building list are only for manual model building for use with an astrometric (reticule) eyepiece

However the choice of star to use for the polar align step can be ANY bright star known to the mount controller that is also close as possible to the celestial equator - meridian intersection. This is where you get the highest precision for the PA step.


Edited by Tonk, 07 December 2020 - 11:55 AM.

 

#600 mworion

mworion

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Hohenbrunn / Munich

Posted 07 December 2020 - 11:21 AM

Frederic,

 

yes, you could use any star for polar align if you are using the command protocol. This was made possible when Filippo implemented some new slew commands for polar and also for ortho align after some discussion with me. I made a selection of my own (quite similar to the 10micron ones), but you could use any. The only point is that you have to calculate the position of the stars correctly for the date you are using them (stars are also moving on the sky) . Filippo noticed that in the command protocol as well. The precision should be in both cases comparable.

 

The hint Tonk gave should be also taken into account.

 

Michel


 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics