Bill Poplawski:
I found I could not get the guiding performance I was looking for with the limited PHD2 lite software running on the ASIAir Plus for my EdgeHD 8, ASI533MM, and EQ6-R Pro configuration.
I moved to N.I.N.A. with the full capabilities of PHD2 and pleased with my ability to optimize my guiding.
Moving up to the longer focal length of the EdgeHD 8 showed me the ASIAir was no longer an acceptable solution for that focal length per my personal standards. Others may have different views and experiences as it should be.
Not my experience at all. ASIAIR Plus has been working very well with a 100mm (aperture) refractor, a 130mm refractor and the Edge 8 HD. Guiding numbers, when the seeing is good, around .35" to .65" or so. Sometimes even down as low as .27" when seeing is really calm. Most importantly are the images themselves: Are the stars sharp and round? In my case, they almost always are unless wind becomes an issue.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Ashraf AbuSara:
Ashraf AbuSara:
I have used my ASIair on the AM5 and now HAE69ec on everything from a C11 with a 0.7x reducer on the AM5, to an AG Optical FA12 12.5" on the HAE69ec and it always guides well. The AM5 was handling the C11 between 0.4-0.6" and the HAE69ec carrying the AG O and guiding between 0.3" and 0.4".
Obviously they are both harmonic drives. Not sure what your mount is.
I have an edge hd 9.25 on an AM5 with a off axis guider and ASI120MM guide camera.
Ok great!
You need to reduce the aggression significantly on the RA/Dec. I ended up closer to 35% on the Dec and 40-45% on the RA. Short and fast exposures are critical with the AM5. 1s is ideal.
My experience as well. Keeping aggression low seems to be better than bumping it up. I have it as low as 10% to 15% on DEC and as low as 20% on RA and the guiding numbers remain low for hours.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Bill Poplawski:
I found I could not get the guiding performance I was looking for with the limited PHD2 lite software running on the ASIAir Plus for my EdgeHD 8, ASI533MM, and EQ6-R Pro configuration.
I moved to N.I.N.A. with the full capabilities of PHD2 and pleased with my ability to optimize my guiding.
Moving up to the longer focal length of the EdgeHD 8 showed me the ASIAir was no longer an acceptable solution for that focal length per my personal standards. Others may have different views and experiences as it should be.
Not my experience at all. ASIAIR Plus has been working very well with a 100mm (aperture) refractor, a 130mm refractor and the Edge 8 HD. Guiding numbers, when the seeing is good, around .35" to .65" or so. Sometimes even down as low as .27" when seeing is really calm. Most importantly are the images themselves: Are the stars sharp and round?
My stars are now sharp and round using the HOCUS FOCUS plugin in NINA. It has the Abberation Inspector feature which helps me dial in backfocus and also understand how much tilt is present.
The full package of PHD2 I use now that I'm on NINA also helps me achieve round sharp stars.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry, how do you determine those numbers to plug into that formula?
- Resolution in arc-seconds per pixel? (Is this with the .7x reducer?)
- How do you find Sidereal Rate?
- How do you find Ground Guide Rate?
You have to know the pixel size of the sensor in the camera you're using and the telescope focal length you're using. You can do that here: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd
Once you know that number, substitute that number for the r value. The Sidereal rate is always going to be 15.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sidereal+rate+in+seconds
Your guide rate (gr) is set in your app that comes with your mount. It's usually .5 seconds, but you'll have to check.
Take a few moments to study the formula and you'll get it. It's not very complicated.
The calibration step size doesn't need to be perfect, as so long as it's close to what it should be. For example, the formula I use says I should have a calibration step size of 909 but PHD says it should be 950. Either way, there are so many other factors (seeing and sky conditions, guide camera exposure time, RA and DEC aggression, focal length) that the calibration step size just needs to be close...
With my 9.25 SCT and ASI482MC camera for the the guide camera I’m getting 195 for the calibration step size? Doesn’t this seem small? Also what are the Dec and RA settings supposed to be? What is the telescope and guide camera combination you are using?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I know we’ve been discussing the Calibration Step Size and Dec and RA aggression settings, but what about the Max Dec Duration and the Max RA Duration number settings?
Below are the numbers I currently have for my setup with an Edge HD 9.25 with a focal length of 1645mm and a ASI482MC guide camera with a pixel size of 5.8um for the OAG. I have a feeling these are way off.
 |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry, how do you determine those numbers to plug into that formula?
- Resolution in arc-seconds per pixel? (Is this with the .7x reducer?)
- How do you find Sidereal Rate?
- How do you find Ground Guide Rate?
You have to know the pixel size of the sensor in the camera you're using and the telescope focal length you're using. You can do that here: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd
Once you know that number, substitute that number for the r value. The Sidereal rate is always going to be 15.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sidereal+rate+in+seconds
Your guide rate (gr) is set in your app that comes with your mount. It's usually .5 seconds, but you'll have to check.
Take a few moments to study the formula and you'll get it. It's not very complicated.
The calibration step size doesn't need to be perfect, as so long as it's close to what it should be. For example, the formula I use says I should have a calibration step size of 909 but PHD says it should be 950. Either way, there are so many other factors (seeing and sky conditions, guide camera exposure time, RA and DEC aggression, focal length) that the calibration step size just needs to be close...
With my 9.25 SCT and ASI482MC camera for the the guide camera I’m getting 195 for the calibration step size? Doesn’t this seem small? Also what are the Dec and RA settings supposed to be? What is the telescope and guide camera combination you are using?
Take a look at my gallery. If you think I am getting good results, then use my advice. If not, don't follow my advice! I get best results when I keep my RA and DEC aggression low, between 10% and 40% or so. I set the RA and DEC Max duration to around 200ms or 250ms. After that I forget about it and concentrate on getting an excellent polar alignment and focus. And I choose my targets carefully based on where they are in the sky, their transit times, etc.
195ms for your calibration step size sounds about right. I use the Edge 8" and the calibration step size is 155ms. My refractors on the other hand use a calibration step size of 909ms. That's because I am using a 242mm focal length guide scope instead of an OAG with the Edge which is guiding at 1422mm focal length (with reducer) or 2032mm without reducer.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Dirks:
I have the exact same setup (and AM5 mount). Also struggled with guiding performance in the beginning. I upgraded the guide camera from ASI120MM-MINI to ASI174MM-MINI. Solved all of my issues. (The ASI220MM-MINI may also be a good choice.)
The ASI174 is a bit over-size for the OAG image circle, but that's OK, it guarantees every star projected by the OAG is available for guiding. I'm using bin1, high gain (350), dark library and 2 sec exposures. I don't have it in front of me, but think I'm using 65% aggressiveness. The defaults were too high.
I never messed with the calibration parameters. (But maybe I should look at that?) When calibrating I point the telescope near-ish to the equator and meridian.
I usually get guiding RMS < 0.50" (if it goes over that I start checking stuff, but it's usually poor seeing). I've occasionally seen RMS down to maybe 0.25" at higher declinations and still air. I think that's getting close to the mechanical limit of the mount.
In the case where there just aren't good guide stars in your OAG field of view, an option you have with the square aspect ratio of the ASI533 is you can rotate the camera 90 degrees and have the same framing, but maybe by chance a better set of guide stars. I've done that a couple times. Just remember to recalibrate.
I have an EAF and don't lock the primary mirror. I find that the OAG compensates for the mirror flop very well. (Also it was my experience with a mini guide scope that the mirror locks did basically nothing anyway.)
Lastly, I use the 48mm diameter T-adapter with the OAG.
Hope that helps.
Hey Bill, I just got my 174mm mini for my Celestron OAG. I’m imaging tonight and I’m getting between .93 and 1.20 RMS. I’m dying to get your great guiding.
Since we have the exact same telescope and guiding setup, would you be able to get me the following settings you use?
- Calibration Step Size
- Max Dec Duration
- Max RA Duration
- RA Aggression
- Dec Aggression
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
2 nights ago my calibration settings were set to default
my guiding was a disaster; too rough
since I still don't understand what are the best settings, I just set my calibration step to 450ms, my Dec duration to 350, and my Ra duration to 350
I'm gonna see if that makes a difference
I use 950mm focal length with an OAG and 174mm mini
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
I'm setting up tonight. I'll note down those values and reply again here.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Dirks:
I'm setting up tonight. I'll note down those values and reply again here.
Awesome! I really appreciate it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
@Uhhjoe82 For what it's worth, I have the following right now:
Calibration Step Size: 500
Max Dec Duration: 2000
Max RA Duration: 2000
RA Aggression: 85
Dec Aggression: 50
But I fiddle with the RA Aggression; maybe 60 ... 85 range.
1650mm focal length. I think I used Calibration Step Size 2000 with the mini-guider (120mm FL), but it's been a while.
My guiding is normally just a function of the seeing. Unless there are few or very faint guide stars, then it gets worse. I've been struggling with that lately. I've increased the gain to the max, and adjusted the exposure from 2s to 3s to 4s depending on what I need to get guide stars. Shorter is better I think with AM5. I usually don't need to go below 2s, but sometimes use 1s if the guide stars are bright enough.
I'll add that I'm using an ASI174MM-MINI guide camera which is 5.86 micron/pixel or about 0.73"/pixel at that focal length.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
Yes, I’m aware of that. But, Bill has the exact setup as me and has been achieving less than .50 RMS every night. So, I wanted all his calibration settings so I can at least have a good starting point with my setup.
We both have an Edge HD 9.25 on an AM5 mount and guiding with a ASI174MM mini with a Celestron OAG. His guiding has been great and mine pretty bad. I understand seeing conditions effects the settings a bit, but it shouldn’t by much since we have the same setup.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Dirks:
@Uhhjoe82 For what it's worth, I have the following right now:
Calibration Step Size: 500
Max Dec Duration: 2000
Max RA Duration: 2000
RA Aggression: 85
Dec Aggression: 50
But I fiddle with the RA Aggression; maybe 60 ... 85 range.
1650mm focal length. I think I used Calibration Step Size 2000 with the mini-guider (120mm FL), but it's been a while.
My guiding is normally just a function of the seeing. Unless there are few or very faint guide stars, then it gets worse. I've been struggling with that lately. I've increased the gain to the max, and adjusted the exposure from 2s to 3s to 4s depending on what I need to get guide stars. Shorter is better I think with AM5. I usually don't need to go below 2s, but sometimes use 1s if the guide stars are bright enough.
I'll add that I'm using an ASI174MM-MINI guide camera which is 5.86 micron/pixel or about 0.73"/pixel at that focal length.
Great! These should be a good starting point for me. I’m using an OAG with the 174mm also. How was you guiding last night?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
@Uhhjoe82
Four guiding sessions of about 1h45m each,
Target at declination +26 deg.
1 or 2 weak guide stars. 3s exposure
0.73" 9:30pm - 11:15pm
Brighter stars, about 6 guide stars. 2s exposure
0.48" 11:15pm - 1:00am
0.57" 1:00am - 2:45am
Target was at declination +59 deg.
1 or 2 guide stars. 2s exposure
0.55" 3:30am - 5:15am
Seeing was normal, for a calm night. Bin2
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
Yes, I’m aware of that. But, Bill has the exact setup as me and has been achieving less than .50 RMS every night. So, I wanted all his calibration settings so I can at least have a good starting point with my setup.
We both have an Edge HD 9.25 on an AM5 mount and guiding with a ASI174MM mini with a Celestron OAG. His guiding has been great and mine pretty bad. I understand seeing conditions effects the settings a bit, but it shouldn’t by much since we have the same setup.
Yeah, that makes sense if you have the exact same equipment.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry Gerber:
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
Yes, I’m aware of that. But, Bill has the exact setup as me and has been achieving less than .50 RMS every night. So, I wanted all his calibration settings so I can at least have a good starting point with my setup.
We both have an Edge HD 9.25 on an AM5 mount and guiding with a ASI174MM mini with a Celestron OAG. His guiding has been great and mine pretty bad. I understand seeing conditions effects the settings a bit, but it shouldn’t by much since we have the same setup.
Yeah, that makes sense if you have the exact same equipment.
I tried that equation and it sets my calibration step size to 180. I don’t think I’m doing the equation correctly though. I’m not finding the Resolution of my scope. There are 2 resolutions for the Edge HD 9.25 listed in the specs. Which one do I go with for the equation?
There’s Rayleigh Resolution (.59 arc seconds) and Dawes Resolution (.49 arc seconds)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry Gerber:
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
Yes, I’m aware of that. But, Bill has the exact setup as me and has been achieving less than .50 RMS every night. So, I wanted all his calibration settings so I can at least have a good starting point with my setup.
We both have an Edge HD 9.25 on an AM5 mount and guiding with a ASI174MM mini with a Celestron OAG. His guiding has been great and mine pretty bad. I understand seeing conditions effects the settings a bit, but it shouldn’t by much since we have the same setup.
Yeah, that makes sense if you have the exact same equipment.
I tried that equation and it sets my calibration step size to 180. I don’t think I’m doing the equation correctly though. I’m not finding the Resolution of my scope. There are 2 resolutions for the Edge HD 9.25 listed in the specs. Which one do I go with for the equation?
There’s Rayleigh Resolution (.59 arc seconds) and Dawes Resolution (.49 arc seconds)
Did you go to Astronomy Tools https://astronomy.tools/calculators/guidescope_suitability and plug in your guide scope and your camera? Or, if you're using an OAG than your main scope's focal length needs to be given.
Let's say your resolution is 1.41 arc-seconds per pixel. Then:
2(1.41) = 2.82
2.82 / sidereal rate x guide rate (15 x .5 if your guide rate is .5 seconds, or 7.5), this comes to .376
.376 x 1000 (number of milliseconds in 1 second) = 376
Calibration Step Size = 376ms
Last night I was using a new guide camera and I forgot to change the calibration step size so ASIAIR failed to calibrate. When I realized my error, I recalculated the calibration step size using the new resolution and calibration succeeded and, other than a bit of wind, guiding was stable all night, hovering around .6".
Here's the (unfinished) image, I'm going to try and gather more photons of M51 tonight if the clouds don't roll in:
 |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry Gerber:
Jerry Gerber:
I don't know how many people have said this, but just because someone's guiding numbers (calibration step size, Max RA and DEC duration, exposure time, aggression, works for them, that DOES NOT MEAN those numbers will work for you. Every kit is different, every focal length, camera, guide camera, sensor size, arc-second per pixel, seeing conditions--These are all different for everyone. This is why asking someone for their numbers and using them, isn't the best approach. It may work, it may not.
Consider using this equation and you'll probably have better results:
2(r) / (s × gr) ×1000 = calibration step time in milliseconds, or
2(3.41) / 7.5 x 1000 (example with Evoguide and ASI220)
r = resolution of sensor/scope in arc-seconds per pixel
s = sidereal rate (number of arc-seconds in 1000ms, about 15)
gr = mount guide rate
1000 = milliseconds in 1 second
Yes, I’m aware of that. But, Bill has the exact setup as me and has been achieving less than .50 RMS every night. So, I wanted all his calibration settings so I can at least have a good starting point with my setup.
We both have an Edge HD 9.25 on an AM5 mount and guiding with a ASI174MM mini with a Celestron OAG. His guiding has been great and mine pretty bad. I understand seeing conditions effects the settings a bit, but it shouldn’t by much since we have the same setup.
Yeah, that makes sense if you have the exact same equipment.
I tried that equation and it sets my calibration step size to 180. I don’t think I’m doing the equation correctly though. I’m not finding the Resolution of my scope. There are 2 resolutions for the Edge HD 9.25 listed in the specs. Which one do I go with for the equation?
There’s Rayleigh Resolution (.59 arc seconds) and Dawes Resolution (.49 arc seconds)
Did you go to Astronomy Tools https://astronomy.tools/calculators/guidescope_suitability and plug in your guide scope and your camera? Or, if you're using an OAG than your main scope's focal length needs to be given.
Let's say your resolution is 1.41 arc-seconds per pixel. Then:
2(1.41) = 2.82
2.82 / sidereal rate x guide rate (15 x .5 if your guide rate is .5 seconds, or 7.5), this comes to .376
.376 x 1000 (number of milliseconds in 1 second) = 376
Calibration Step Size = 376ms
Last night I was using a new guide camera and I forgot to change the calibration step size so ASIAIR failed to calibrate. When I realized my error, I recalculated the calibration step size using the new resolution and calibration succeeded and, other than a bit of wind, guiding was stable all night, hovering around .6".
can you plz break down your equation and explain to me what I need to do?
it sounds like French no matter how hard I try to understand
I need that stable guiding
Telescopius says my resolution is 0.82"/px, and Rayleigh limit is 0.68"
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I don't know what guide rate means
guide exposure length?
if so, it's usually 1 second
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I don't know what guide rate means
guide exposure length?
if so, it's usually 1 second
Resolution means the resolution of your sensor/focal length combination and is measured in arc-seconds per pixel.
Guide rate is the rate the mount moves relative to sidereal time (the rate the stars move). .5 is a common guide rate. Your mount (if not an AM5) probably has software where you can adjust the guide rate. The AM5, until recently) was fixed at .5.
There's probably a clearer definition than mine.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
you mean tracking rate?
I can choose between 1 and 10 for the tracking rate
ASIair always tells me it cannot guide if the rate is not set to 1
probably not what you're talking about?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
note: I have an AVX mount, not a star tracker
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
and how do I figure out Sidereal rate?  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
aha!
google says sidereal tracking rate is 15.042 arcseconds per second
now I need to figure out "guiding rate"
EDIT: Because both Jerry and Google said 15, I'm assuming that 15 is the universal number for the Sidereal Rate, but I might be wrong.
Google:
"The sidereal tracking rate is the rate at which the stars appear to move through our nighttime sky and the rate at which a telescope must move to account for it and keep objects stable and in view. The rate we use on Earth is about 15.042 arcseconds per second."
maybe all this is obvious and I look like a total dummy making these observations  but all this is very new to me
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
8.77
1.20
0.00
4.02
0.00
