As a rookie with a grasp of most of these concepts that is almost as powerful as a rusty used mouse trap that is missing the spring, I really have benefitted from much of the stuff posted in the classics forum. I appreciate it all. The goal, I think, for all of the stuff posted on this specific forum is intended to benefit noobs like me, or at least to benefit the group as a whole. Sometimes, though, the criticism is confusing to me.
I think I read it mentioned somewhere else, but someone mentioned that DPAC shows errors, but not always the significance, how the errors can be corrected, or how the error will present itself at the ep. I might be taking what was said out of context and/or not understanding what was written at all, but it seemed to me when I read it that the point was that DPAC was a reliable tool, but it showed errors...not how GOOD the scope actually is. It might show how good the scope is NOT, but how GOOD the scope is might not be as conspicuously affected at the ep by the errors that the DPAC shows. So, an excellent scope might not have an excellent DPAC. A gold medal sprinter might run a race in a crappy pair of shoes, but will still blow the doors off of nearly every competitor they go up against. The time vs their personal best is likely affected by the crummy shoes, but you won't have a clue that their shoes slowed them down when your jaw hits the floor as you watch them bust the tape.
My rambling point is this, I guess. I appreciate the detail and critiquing of someone's DPAC results, when they are specifically requesting it. When they are not requesting it, for me (and, I realize that it might not be the same for brighter noobs), it gets more confusing. I like when the post has the DPAC, plus the star test, plus the real-life at the ep pics too. Like this thread.
Late to the dance, and two left feet anyway, but I like trying to sort out the details for each of the separate types of threads. Just gets confusing when the two are intertwined.
Anyway, on the intended topic, this 2045 is impressive to me regardless. I like the Meade blue, and I like the tiny size. Seems like a good choice for a packable option. Should fit into carry on, right? Those pics were awesome.