Can I go wrong with a Paramount MX?

[Floyd]

Hello all,

For the past year I've had my eye on the Paramount MX. The fact that a PC is required is not an issue for me as I want the mount for CCD imaging.

I have read a lot of praise for this mount, but a few things keep holding me back. First off - is TheSkyX riddled with bugs? The general impression I get is that TheSkyX has quite a few bugs in it and that makes it difficult to work with. Is this really the case?

How well does TheSkyX work with MaximDL?

Secondly, I understand that while the mechanical finish of the mount is top-notch there are still reports of mounts having an out-of-spec PE. For instance, this thread, in particular, had me worried: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=96984&highlight=Paramount

I know that Bisque eventually did fix the problem, but it's a bit worrying that a $8000/9000 mount would have this issues out of the box. I currently have a G11 and while it has never given me any significant issues (besides the occasional refusing to calibrate via the auto guider and loss of subs when crossing the meridian), I would be extremely disappointed if the PMX needs 'tuning' or a worm replacement of some sort as you expect these sort of things with a G11 and not with a top of the line mount.

I have dealt with Bisque and it seems they do indeed reply but it takes them some time to do so. So, my question to Paramount MX owners is that knowing what you know now, would you still purchase a Paramount MX or go the way of AP if you could do it all over again?

Thirdly - will my Starlight Xpress Lodestar work as a autoguider via PHD for the PMX?

[brian nordstrom]

;) Nice choice of mount Floyd , and If you do buy one and find it is not up to the job ,,,
,,, :question: you could always give it to me ?? :lol: .
Brian.

[Barrykgerdes]

I'm Sorry Floyd

They are a great mount but like the old cars, They need to be run in. This takes about two years.;)

However I can save you all that bother by looking after it for two years while it gets "broken in":thumbsup:;)

Barry

[gregbradley]

Hi Floyd,

That thread was by me. I did have some teething troubles with my PMX. But I must say Bisque got on it and handled it for me.

In my case the PE originally was fine. But because they have this 3 way switch system to be able to unlock and lock the axes it requires a complex pin and cam system that appears to be quite sensitive to adjustment to perform properly.

So what can happen is this pin/cam unit was not adjusted properly and it causes the RA axis to slip and grind on the gears (ouch- it makes a horrible sound like your gears just gotten written off!). This happened on my mount several times.

They have a pdf document about how to adjust this pin/cam. The document is well written but unfortunately it is not complete and is missing a few vital steps. So following that document you may or may not achieve success.

In my case it seems the worm did in fact get slightly damaged by this and I started getting a bad bump in my PE causing stars to look like double stars in my images.

To their credit SB sent me a brand new worm to replace the old. I did this and it all worked well except I still had a slight slippage problem (only happened once) and some backlash in the guiding I did not have before. A quick post got the solution which I implemented and it appears to be perfect now.

I see they dropped the price to $7995. That is very competitive.

Would I get one again? Well I love my PME mount, it really is a gem.
PMX so far is not in the same league in that I would regard it as a lovely mount but it may require/may not require some fiddling to make it smooth. I suspect this is all behind SB now as I got one of the first out. Not a good purchasing plan to be the first as the bugs aren't yet full sorted.

The last time I used the Sky X as far as I could tell everything now works and all the bugs that I was encountering (PEC not working and perhaps T-point modelling too hard to get going) are now sorted. Part was an update and part was studying the software more and making sure I was using it correctly. I use CCDsoft and it integrates very well.

You can get a driver for the Lodestar that works with CCDsoft (I used to use Lodestar with CCDSoft and PME) but it does not allow you to use autodarks in autoguiding which you should do with Lodestar.

I think a mature system like AP900 would be tempting next time around but now its working I quite like the PMX. Its very sophisticated and part machine, part software. I think I would especially at $7995. AP900 is more than that isn't it? If it were $9,000 I would lean to pay a tad more and get an AP1200 or whatever their larger unit is now. It would be a bit more but you would be guaranteed 2nd to none performance. AP really is the standard in this hobby. Nobody does it better.

But AP preload PEC into their mounts. That saves some time. PMX has a higher weight capacity than AP900. AP1200 is more the competitor to PMX and it is more expensive. But I have never heard of a complaint about an AP1200 ever. I think you can also buy an upgraded encoder for it to make it sub 1 arc second accurate (unless that's only the AP1600).

I think you are safe getting a PMX now. There are quite a few using them on this site and the images I see using them have beautiful round stars which I associate with SB mounts.

Greg.

[tlgerdes]

There are only two ways that an MX would be a bad choice

1) You cant afford it, and the bank reposesses it.

2) Your "Lifestyle partner" thinks you cant afford it, and forever will remind you about it and refuses to let you play with it.

[CDKPhil]

Hi Floyd,
I have had my MX for about one year. I haven't regretted buying it at all.

I was one of the Australian owners who had a faulty worm. Once the problem was isolated SB replaced the worm block and it has be great ever since.

Even though I had to have the worm block replaced I still would buy another SB mount. It has not put me off in the slightest.

I hope SB has implemented better quality controls, so mounts don't go out with faulty worm blocks.

The software is not that buggy. As with any software there are problems but SB seem to resolve them quickly. There are regular daily builds.

There is quite a learning curve with Sky X as there is with any new software, but if I can learn how to use it any one can.:lol:

I don't use Maxim DL so I can't comment on that one.

You don't need PHD to guide, Sky X has its own built in guiding software. It is simple to use. ( Direct Guide via USB) wifi coming soon.

You can control your camera within Sky X.

Sky X is the only software I use to capture, guide and control the mount. It will also control my dome when I get around to doing that. For me this is really cool because that means I can run my whole setup on my Mac. I don't need three or four different apps with their own individual problems or a dedicated Windows PC.

Don't take my word for it though, It is a lot of money to hand over. Do your research and comparisons, see if you can organise with someone to have a look at theirs.

I have been able to achieve 10 mins unguided at a focal length of 2541mm.
Thats pretty awesome in my book.

Cheers

Phil

[Floyd]

Thanks for responding, Greg. Did you find that Bisque responded to you quickly or did they take their time? I'm glad that Bisque got the issue sorted out for you, but I just feel a bit worried because an issue like that should not happen to a $9000 mount.



Indeed. That has what gotten me interested. I had my sights set on AP900's successor, but of course AP hasn't really said when that is going to be announced. I love the PMX's features, it seems like a modern and incredibly capable mount. The AP900, in comparison, just feel a bit dated. No through-the-mount cabling and no USB hub on the saddle. It has also has lesser payload capacity than the PMX. On paper the PMX is no doubt superior.



It may or not be behind them, the SB forums do show threads with some folks having issues. The PME was legendary and that was the only reason I was considering a PMX (I don't own an ME, but I have read extensively about it and it seems that really was a great mount!).



My main concern is that I really need my next mount to last me at least 10 years. I know if I buy the AP900 today it would still be supported a decade later. I would love an AP1600, but it's a bit out of my league and it is also quite large. I need the mount to be portable.

I would get an AP1200 used (that was such a great size, why did AP have to go and discontinue it?!) but buying used also has it's issues. I am in a country with barely any astro gear and if I buy used online the seller usually is a bit concerned as well. Retailers and manufacturers are usually more understanding.

I guess it boils down to: do you folks feel the AP900 is a good value - even if it's replaced this (or next) year? It is, by all accounts, a stable platform on which one can rely on. Remote use is of no concern.

[Floyd]

Thank you your response. I honestly do hope SB has implemented a better QC. I have a question - did you not feel that a $9000 mount shouldn't have had to have it's worm replaced?

Threads like this don't fill me with confidence: http://www.bisque.com/sc/forums/t/16982.aspx?PageIndex=3 :(

[CDKPhil]

Absolutely!
I was not expecting to have any problems with a mount of this dollar value, nor should I.
It is a shame that a few others shared in this experience. It has put a tarnish on a superbly engineered mount.
Definitely factory testing would have caught the problem before it ever went public.

This story could have easily gone the other way, but Software Bisque stepped up to the plate and did the right thing without complaint or accusations. Now my mount operates well within spec and I am very happy with it.

If I could do this all again knowing what I know now, I would still choose the MX over any other mount in its price range. I really enjoy using it.



I have been following this thread, and I hope this persons issues are promptly sorted out.

[gregbradley]

SB responded fairly quickly and I did not expect them to send a new worm without my asking. So that was nice. It does perform better than the earlier worm which also originally was very good.

At the time I was peeved but in hindisght this is a small industry with boutique producers and high tech equipment. I think for the price, its capability, its integration with software and T-point modelling etc you are able with some work on your part, have a top class mount that should last you a long time. You may or may not depending on current QC have to do some fiddling. Whilst I don't agree with it, this is an unfortunate thing in our hobby that you are often required to fiddle with expensive gear to make it optimum.

For $7995 its a lot of mount for your buck and you get a lot of sophisticated software with it as well. Its currently the best value I know of. What else is there in that league for $7995 including several softwares? (SB will give you CCDsoft for free as well if you are not using it currently).

Greg.

[avandonk]

My PMX worked flawlessly out of the box. It was only my own inexperience with the software etc that made it difficult. Once I figured out how to do a T-Point calibration the goto was seven seconds of arc rms in error. With my camera that is about two pixels! Aligning the the mount accurately to the SCP was a doddle.

When doing test exposures of even a few minutes without guiding there is no sign of tracking error.

I have flexure that shows up far more than tracking. In fact I estimate that the tracking error with guiding is less than one second of arc. There are no nasty jumps due to gears as the servo motors control the worms with ribbed belts. There is just no backlash!

I control the mount remotely from inside my house where it is free of cold mozzies and darkness.

This mount lets me get on with what I want to do. I wish I had a mount like this years ago.

bert

[PRejto]

I have a PMX and was in the early first group of owners.

Yes, I would do it again, even though for me the learning curve is steep, and at times is still steep, even after a year. But then I came to the mount without prior experience of any kind in terms of high end mounts, computer control, etc.

My worm has been perfect out of the box, and I've suffered zero slippage even with my 12" CAT mounted. Uncorrected PE is under 2 arc sec!

I don't know enough about AP mounts but I don't think they have absolute encoders. I love the fact that I can begin using my MX literally in a few minutes of starting up. Once the mount moves from parked to home position no further adjustment is necessary to begin using a previously stored pointing model...in other words no synch is required at all. I have used the same model for months. And these super models give fantastic polar alignment information and terrific pointing, and data collection for T-Point is fully automated. You can decide to run a 400 point all sky model, start it and walk away until it is done. Amazing! The new upgraded camera plugin is really becoming sophisticated. The guiding screen is excellent and dithering is promised shortly. Bottom line is I can't imagine you wouldn't be thrilled with this mount, and from my experience on the SB forum, if you have an equipment problem, you will get help and the Bisque brothers will do right by you.

Peter

[Logieberra]

'''The fact that a PC is required is not an issue for me as I want the mount for CCD imaging'''.

Even that is changing! They will soon release wifi control of MX and ME2 mount, via separately purchased wifi unit, over mac, win, iphone/ipad/ipad mini (android eventually?) and for those handheld devices, via a unique version of TheSkyX to suit.

I, for one, love SBs novel approach to all this stuff. Cool company and constantly on the move and, in my experience, really nice people! Can't go wrong with SB.

[Logieberra]

The newer AP mounts do have absolute encoders as a $3k per axis option on the 1600GTO 'sweet 16' and 3600GTO 'el capitan'. Our MX does not have this option, and may never, we can only hope, so you must be referring to its homing sensors on each axis. And, just to confuse this issue even more, abs encoders will be an option on the ME2! But, like the AP, at around $3K per axis :)

[PRejto]

Yes, sorry...I was certainly confusing homing sensor and absolute encoders!

[Paul Haese]

I don't own a PMX but have a PME. As I understand it the PMX is a lot more advanced in design and from what I have seen the images are just as great guiding and pointing wise as the PME. Even without this consideration even if the PMX were as good as a PME I would say you have nothing to worry about. Software Bisque are good with back up with a new purchase and their gear is easy to service. You can't go wrong.

[DavidNg]

I agree with others here. My PMX works flawlessly, its running TheSkyX is difficult for me, confusing especially for Southern Hemisphere folks at times (should I reverse N/S, E/W, dome geometry parameters, etc ) and sometimes bugged softwares. Despite all that, Yes.. I would by another Software Bisque mount.

[frolinmod]

When I purchased my first Paramount back in 1999 I had no incompatible excess baggage. No prior software and no prior hardware. At least none that mattered. TheSky was the first planetarium program I had ever used. CCDSoft was the first imaging program, etc. I intentionally purchased a camera that I knew in advance would work with it. I didn't have to fight anything. No cognitive dissonance. No fighting against reality. Everything just clicked. My later upgrade to a PME was equally smooth.

[Floyd]

Well after reading all the responses here I felt confident in placing my order. I wire transferred the funds on Thursday. I hope they get them soon as I'm getting quite impatient!

I have been reading the manual and the Quick Polar Alignment Method is quite intriging but there is a step that I don't fully understand. On page 69, under step 7, it says

the object should be within 5 degrees of the pole, or, below the pole and within 5 degrees of the meridian.

What does it mean that the object should be within 5 degrees of the pole? Could someone elaborate?

[PRejto]

I'm sure you will get other responses. I asked the same question on the SB Forum a long time ago, as have several others. I cannot say I recall the answer was entirely clear to me. Suffice to say that other responses indicated that picking a star or planet at random pretty much gets a good enough placement of the mount that you can begin to plate solve. Once you get in 6 points, even if you need to do them manually, the pointing will get much more accurate even if the PA is way out. From there you can probably do automated plate solves. Get at least 40 points and run the super model, adjust PA according to recommendations and you should be quite close to PA. From there it is just a case of refinement.

A few more recommendations that you might find helpful. 1. Don't waste a lot of time trying to PA without plate solving. Get the camera working straight off. You can adjust parameters that will increase your chance of plate solving such as allowing larger field searches. The other thing is don't make the exposure too long. I found 5 seconds or so at 2x2 binning just about perfect. 2. Eventually you may get to a point where you are chasing small adjustments in Azimuth and Altitude and seem to be oscillating back and forth. Typical advice is to try adjusting 50% of the recommended adjustment. This may work but seems random. For altitude I had excellent results by using the camera to verify that the mount actually moved the required amount. Use the jog controls (in TSX) to move the scope in the opposite direction the super model requires. That is, if it says to move the altitude down X arc sec, first take a photo before moving the mount. Then move the mount up using the jog control the same amount and take another photo. Finally, physically lower the mount and take a third photo. If the mount moved accurately your third photo should look exactly like photo #1. It's just a question of moving the mount up/down in little adjustments until the photos agree. This method solved the problem completely for me.

Welcome to the club! I'm sure you will be very happy.

[Floyd]

Thanks PRejto. Another small question: how many boxes should I expect? I haven't ordered any optional accessories. The website talks about just 2 boxes but some people in the PMX shipping thread spoke of 3 boxes - I'm guessing they ordered some additional accessories.

Regarding the PA - if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting I should use the Quick Polar Alignment Method just to get close enough to the pole? Once I've done that, I should make a model using 6 points and then setup an automated point gathering run - gather around, say, 20-30 points and then refine my polar alignment based on the model that tpoint calculates?

[PRejto]

I'm pretty sure I had two boxes only.

Yes/no. Do use the quick polar align method to get you within striking distance of PA. Then Synch according to instructions and begin to collect points. You may need to get your first 6 points manually because your PA may still be too far off. Once the software sees six points it has enough information to be much more accurate in pointing even without changing your PA. It's kind of important to realise that T-Point can be very accurate in pointing even if PA is poor. These are two separate things! Anyway, to get an accurate PA report you need to collect at least 40 points. I don't think this is mentioned in the manual anywhere (in fact I think the manual was (is?) quite confusing about how many points you really need.) but in posts on the SB forum this was stated by the author of T-Point. You won't want to collect 40 points by hand so that is why I suggested that you really need to get your camera doing the hard work by doing automated T-Point runs. Once you collect at least 40 points there will be a PA report but advice is to run the super model and then use that report. They will usually sort of agree, but use the super model report. Another point is to collect points on both sides of the meridian, not just on one side, and if I remember correctly you don't want to wait too long to collect on both sides. There have been postings where lots of points were collected on one side and everything plate solved just fine, but going to the other side of the meridian plate solving would fail. Believe me, I know (!) all of this can seem rather confusing at first. It's a lot easier to just do it than it is to write about it. When I got my mount I actually had never used a CCD camera before so I avoided adding that complication (and I was having massive driver problems with my camera not liking TSX). The result for me was that I made things 100X harder. I was actually shocked when my first attempt at plate solving worked immediately. If you have not done this yet, download the T-Point users manual and read it about 200 times. No, twice might get you going, but more won't hurt! Also think a lot about your camera and drivers. Will it work with TSX? If there is no driver in TSX there might be one for CCDSoft which SB will give you for free if you just ask. You can just tell TSX to use the CCDSoft camera, or the MaxIM camera. If you have no driver problems it should be easy to get T-Point going. Also, if you don't yet have TSX you can request it right now from SB. I did and they provided it in advance of receiving the mount. It's good to read the manuals with the software open.

Peter

[Floyd]

Thanks Peter. I'm waiting for the funds to reach SB. I'm assuming that SB will then automatically register my account with the software keys so I can download SkyX and TPoint.

Did most of you fine folks order by credit card or did anyone here order by wire transfer? How long did it take the money to teach SB?

[frolinmod]

The quick polar alignment language in the MX manual has never been clear to me either. Compare the language in the old PME manual from years ago with that in the new PMX manual. You can see that they have attempted to add restrictions, but it's still not clear to me exactly what the restrictions are.

I think it's 42 or 43 samples where supermodel really kicks into high gear. Try it sometime. Collect 40 samples, click on supermodel, collect another sample, click on supermodel, etc. Each time you do this watch how much time it takes to compute the model and the quality of model that you get. Somewhere there in the low 40s of samples it hits a tipping point, takes more time to compute the model and produces a significantly different result.

I've never had any trouble with the azimuth adjustments. They always dial right in smooth as butter without trouble. It's always been the altitude adjustment that's given me trouble. Sometimes I get "sticky" motion, no motion or less motion than I expect as I turn the altitude adjuster. So now I always use the camera to provide visual feedback as to how much altitude movement I'm actually getting as I turn the altitude adjuster.

But mind you I have the ME. The adjustment knobs on the MX are more refined and presumably the weight of the OTA is less.

[Floyd]

How long does it typically take to gather 40 samples? My scope is F5.3.

[PRejto]

I think SB just ships TSX on a DVD included with the mount so if you want it sooner I think you will need to request that as something special. However, be warned it is a rather large download. T-Point is not a separate download; it is automatically part of TSX Professional.

I can't tell you the exact time to run 40+ points, but suppose 5 sec exposure, 5 sec download, 5 sec to plate solve = 15 sec or so/point. It's actually probably faster, but would depend on your camera and binning mode. The slews are typically quick and close unless there is a meridian change, which there will be, but how many times is hard to guess. anyway, 40 x 15 = 600 sec. 10 min, so I would think between 12-20 min max...maybe faster. It's been a while since I've done this because I am permanently set up.

Peter

[rat156]

Sorry, but I've only just seen this. That is my thread, and no, it hasn't been fixed. Another one is showing similar problems on the Dec axis, but SB don't seem to want to know about it. They want me to adjust the cam again, I'm not an idiot, but I feel a bit like I'm being treated like one, is would be the sixth time I've done this. Greg, can you tell me the bits of the instructions that are missing? The mount has some problem which although intermittent is real, I've gone around in several circles with this problem, I have a half useful mount, if I had bought this in Aus, it'd be back with the agent.

Cheers
Stuart

[Logieberra]

Stuart, I am down in Ballarat over Easter - 10 days. Are you a member of Snake Valley and plan on visiting? That's 15 mins from us. Would love to help if possible. Worst case, could call phil back here in Canberra for phone support, he's darn good with the MX as well.

[Logieberra]

Also, problem could be re-affirmed by me online in Bisque forum, as another competent MX user. Can only bolster your argument :) Two heads better than one.

[rat156]

I'll be out of the country for about six months from mid March, so, thanks for the offer, but I must decline. The main problem is not being able to find a set of circumstances that brings on the failure. Take , for instance, Sunday night. Turned on the mount to cool everything down. Went inside for a while to wait for sunset, came back to a mount failure. Reset the mount, it worked perfectly for a full set of 24 images of comet Lemmon. Slewed to NGC 2070, it took 15 of 18 subs of 15 mins each before failing sometime in the wee small hours.

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

No, I'm trying to be nice in the SB forum. I have made a couple of pleads and have posted in another thread which is a bit less pleasant. If I had a personal email contact for one of the guys there it would be easier. I don't want to post bad stuff in a public forum, but I'm getting a bit fed up with the run around, I think I'm up to four members of the company commenting on the thread now. Perhaps I should just send it back, I can't use it for the best part of six months anyway.

Cheers
Stuart

[Logieberra]

Stuart, I had a self-inflicted problem a while back with my MX. Funky mental-on-metal sound at approx 2pm position in RA each time (looking @ MX from behind and facing south). Drove me insane there for a while!

Turned out my homemade speaker wire dew heater straps were far too thick and tacky - with no 'slack', causing a tug on the RA axis @ 2pm each time.

Anyways, my point here - I emailed Sarah Bisque direct. We fleshed it out offline for a while there and, along with Phil's input, put this issue to bed. I've sent you a PM with her email address. She's one of the SB engineers. Good luck! Logan.

[Floyd]

Well guys, Colleen at SB just emailed and let me know that they've recieved my funds and I should have my tracking number by the end of the week.

I'm pretty confident sure I made the right choice here - I don't think any other mount comes close in the value that the PMX offers. Still hoping I don't get the issue you're having, Stuart.

It appears a couple of mounts are having that issue on the SB forum. Really hope SB gets to the bottom of this.

[CDKPhil]

Nice one Floyd, good to see you have taken the plunge.

It will be worth it.

If you need any help send me a PM, I would be happy to talk over the phone.


Stuart:

Have you checked the connections on the circuit board? Loose USB wire might be causing intermittent problems. Or maybe a faulty board? I have a spare board if you want to give that a try? Let me know.

Cheers.

[cventer]

Mechanically these mounts are fairly simple. So if you have ruled out anything mechanical eg cable snags, internal cable issues, cam spring etc...and timin belts, then it's time to look at electrics.

I had a strange issue for a while that I thought was electric and it turned out to be a crack in one of the timing belts with a build up of material from the belt creating a high spot that stalled the motor.

Check on electrics next. Check all cables on circuit board are sound. It slides out and you can check it easily. Check encoder connections on motors. Also make sure encoder is tight and not moving relative to motors. Failing this try a new Board as per Phil's offer.

I'm sure you will sort it....shame you have to though...

[Logieberra]

Stu, saw your SB post, those black belts are evil! You can buy grey locally, 100% same as what SB sells. I forget where, Cventre has details of seller, I think (as didn't acknowledge receiving that info).

[frolinmod]

SB spec nylon covered fiberglass reinforced neoprene belts for the ME and polyurethane body with kevlar cord belts for the MX. With the ME they require belt tension be set with a sonic tension meter. I wonder why they don't do that with the MX as well. Maybe that's why the MX belts fall apart, but the ME ones don't?

[rat156]

Hi Guys,
Strangely, I had mentioned that I had the black belts in an earlier post, so if they are know to cause trouble why didn't SB simply send some out as they are doing now. It seems that my retensioning of the belt on the RA axis has shown the failure, there wasn't this much black crap before. There was some in the pulley when I pulled the worm assembly.

Hopefully this is the problem all along, I'll be very pleased if I get some nice grey belts and no errors.

I'll pull the lot apart today and clean the living sh!t out of everything. Looks like another clear one tonight, good testing weather.

Moral of the story Floyd, unpack the mount, undo the RA cover and check the colour of the belts.

Cheers
Stuart

[bert]

I spoke to Steve bisque recently at the aic in Santa Clara. He mentioned that they have had issues with the pmx belt pulleys being out of round (a externally sourced component that slipped through qc). So check that. And Chris if you didn't know, that's why they replaced the worm blocks in your mount. It wasn't the worm as such that caused the issue.

I suggested that sb have some issues with PR here is aus as well. That did not sit well with him.

[rat156]

I'm not sure about PR issues, it's just the way you get treated sometimes. We are a long way away, in general the conversations are 12 hours from question to answer, so what you don't want is a (seemingly) glib reply about checking the latest download for TSX, it's the equivalent of the TV series The IT Crowd "turn it off and turn it back on again".

Maybe it's different in the States, but I would have thought that most of the Aussies that own a Paramount are serious users and know a thing or two about the mount hardware and software, I wouldn't class myself as an expert, but I'm not a newbie either*. So when you get a reply about checking the software and firmware (which is fair enough as a start) and nothing else, they have essentially wasted 24 hours of diagnostic time.

In my case, they could have listed a series of things to check/adjust, by the time I got to the belts and black stuff we may have figured out the problem. This is what I find annoying, but they aren't Robinson Crusoe with this.

Cheers
Stuart

* For instance, whilst this has been going on I have learnt that guiding near the pole is difficult, something I first thought was a mount problem. SB could easily have pointed me in the right direction, I had to find this out for myself.

[rat156]

Hi All,
After many iterations it seems that the mystery of out of balance errors has been solved.

Yes, the black belts seemed to have been the problem all along. I now have the grey belts and things seem to be much better.

I'm now off OS for about 5 months so won't get to use the mount for that time. Hopefully this has solved the problem completely.

Cheers
Stuart

[gregbradley]

Greg, can you tell me the bits of the instructions that are missing? The mount has some problem which although intermittent is real, I've gone around in several circles with this problem, I have a half useful mount, if I had bought this in Aus, it'd be back with the agent.

Cheers
Stuart[/QUOTE]


Sorry only just now seeing this.

The cam pin adjustment lacks a few points. Fristly the 2 threaded rod type screws that stick up on the block on either side of the cam pin may or may not need adjusting. I looked at mine and compared it to the drawings which show them sitting quite low. Mine were sitting high.

These 2 screws if not right will cause the gears to slip no matter how many times you adjust the cam. They determine the tension. I was advised by SB they should be 2.25 to 2.5 turns open from fully screwed in. I did that on mine, then adjusted the cam and no more slippage issues and no more stalls. I was getting an occassional stall from too much tension yet if I slacked it off too much I was getting gear slippage. So its a tad sensitive.

My mount has the black belts. I am now wondering if my sudden PE spike was in fact some junk off the belt stuck on the pulley and hitting every couple of minutes or so. I will keep that in mind. I think I'll ask for a couple of grey belts to be sent to me just in case.

Greg.

[baileys2611]

Tested out my PMX tonight. Based on the question for the forum, I.e. can I go wrong with a paramount mx: I don't think so. After homing the mount, roughly adjusting mechanically (I.e. no slewing or using the joystick) for polar alignment then playing around a bit, I got more accuracy than a few months of playing around on my iOptron. I know, I know, no comparison.

Anyway, if I can get very good accuracy without starting a model or tpoint, then it's an awesome machine.

I'm looking forward to building a model and taking some photos with this mount.:thumbsup:

[Logieberra]

Simon, glad to hear it! Welcome to Canberra-Queanbeyan MX Society, we are three strong now :)

[baileys2611]

I tested the MX a bit more tonight. After about an hour of building a model, I tried out TheSky's 'tour' feature. A bit confusing as it threw the model out of accuracy - which is probably something I shouldn't have done because I was getting a bit 'hmm, ho hum' after my 40th or so star so I played around a bit :P.

Anyway, long story short, I just homed the mount, re-synchronised on a star and started the model again, now it works perfectly :thumbsup:! I want to look at 47 Tucanae so I point to it on the sky chart, select slew and voila, dead centre in my eye-pieces (all my scopes now point to the same spot in the sky). I'm stoked.

Now I know I shouldn't have jumped in so quickly because I think I have to turn off auto-corrections in the options somewhere before starting a tpoint model so I'll probably have to do this again, but the way I figure it, a few goes makes me more familiar with the mount and it's operations, the more familiar we are with our tools, the better the outcome and more we can do with them.

So, visual work seems perfect. Tomorrow (or another night because it's late now and I'll probably want sleep tomorrow) I might look at starting my tpoint correctly and build that up over a week or so.

This could not be more fool proof. :D

[rat156]

Hi Simon,

Good to hear that the mount is performing well. I distinctly remember the feeling I got when I first turned it on, got it roughly aligned and started playing with it. It's a great feeling of justification for having forked out the dough.

When it comes to doing a t-point model and getting your PA spot on, there are some experts here and the manual is pretty good. It is worthwhile as once done it makes the dream mount a thing of beauty to use.

When you take the covers off the RA drive check for the grey belts!

Cheers
Stuart

[baileys2611]

Covers off? :eyepop: Not yet I think. I'll start with the easy things and possibly then have a look inside the bonnet - but am going to be gentle for a while until I get more confidence in using it.

Yeah, I've read over the manual and the t-point add on manual. Funny thing is the manual suggests doing an automated calibration run (complete with pictures) for PA whereas the t-point manual suggests initially doing a run with 6 stars and then adjusting, then doing it again and iteratively getting more accuracy.

I'll do it the 6 star way first because it sounds easier.

[frolinmod]

If you want to know how to do polar alignment using Tpoint, don't read the manual, get on the Software Bisque support forum and ask Patrick Wallace. Get it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

[baileys2611]

...is now accurate to the point where Tpoint cannot make any more recommendations without sufficient confidence. Basically within a few arc seconds.

This is awesome - one interesting trap though is I found the recommendations to move the 'left' and 'right' knobs reversed in the software. I have set it to southern hemisphere but after about 3 full runs (and making suggested adjustments) it was just getting further and further away. I applied my brain a little and did the opposite of what it suggested and it worked perfectly. :party2:

Now, clear the data, do a run with 200 or so stars (:rundog:) and I will start my super model. I'm wondering though, do planets count when building a model or should I just stick to stars?

[frolinmod]

You should use a CCD camera and do automated calibration, not manual. Let the mount, camera and software do the work for you while you relax.

[gregbradley]

This is awesome - one interesting trap though is I found the recommendations to move the 'left' and 'right' knobs reversed in the software. I have set it to southern hemisphere but after about 3 full runs (and making suggested adjustments) it was just getting further and further away. I applied my brain a little and did the opposite of what it suggested and it worked perfectly. :party2:



I wouldn't use planets. Don't they move at a different rate to stars?

I followed the recommendations and got improvements. That is odd. Do you have the latest build of Sky X? It may have been a bug that was fixed. If so you should report that to SB so they can add a correction to their latest build.

Greg.

[rat156]

Hi Guys,

I have also found this to be the case, but, the software tells you to turn the right or left knob, which is which depends on your orientation to the scope. If, you sit where I do, facing the electronics, or looking South, the the knobs are reversed, if you look North, then they are correct.

I liked the labeling as East or West myself, these are absolute and if you can't tell East from West, then you're gunna struggle with setting up a scope.

Cheers
Stuart

[PRejto]

Agreed, the old way was completely unambiguous. Why they changed the East/west method is beyond me....

Simon, Ernie is correct. Let your camera do the work! Do automated T-Point runs of at least 45 points, run the super model, and then make polar adjustments. If you run less than 45 points or so the results will start to be contradictory from one run to another. Patrick Wallace has stated that T-Point is not iterative; that is, if you follow the recommendations exactly the mount should be aligned perfectly. The great difficulty is that what you input to the mount in terms of movement in azimuth and elevation may not be accurate enough. You might get a recommendation to move by 1.4 tics. You may think you moved it 1.4 tics but the reality is that the mount probably only approximated that move. So, yes, repeating the process over a few times does get you closer and closer, but then the adjustments also get harder to do and you can end up chasing your tail so to speak. When you get really close you might try using the camera to confirm the move was accurate. For example, you get a recommendation to move the mount up by 45 arcsec. Try using the slew command and move the scope 45 arcsec down. Then adjust the mount up and compare photos. Using this method you can get closer than you actually need! There are more details on how to do this on the SB site. Ernie put me onto this method and it really works well once you figure out how to do it!

Peter

[baileys2611]

Greg - yes, my naivete on the planet question was more about if the software takes into account the movement of planets at the same time. Since have done some reading and realise...err...bit of a novice question to ask :ashamed:

I grabbed the latest build (and daily release) about two days ago - the daily build was I think the 27th or 29th of March one, but, I will do as you recommend and let them know about the experience, purely in the interests of giving them as much info about the end user experience to help out.

Peter - after reading your info about twice I got it! I completely understand, which is a new feeling for me....:P And Ernie's advice is good, I've been using the camera in live mode instead of letting TSX take pictures for me because I wanted to figure out how it all works first. Now I understand the theory, I'll do it using an automated run and sip my scotch and maybe watch the sky a little while it's working for me ;)

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=baileys2611;962578]Greg - yes, my naivete on the planet question was more about if the software takes into account the movement of planets at the same time. Since have done some reading and realise...err...bit of a novice question to ask :ashamed:

I grabbed the latest build (and daily release) about two days ago - the daily build was I think the 27th or 29th of March one, but, I will do as you recommend and let them know about the experience, purely in the interests of giving them as much info about the end user experience to help out.

Never feel embarrassed to ask any question. That's what this forum is here for.

It may be that the latest build has an inadvertent bug that has affected this. For what its worth I did not experience any difficulty with T-point polar recommendations last time I used it which was about 4 months ago now.

Greg.

[Helo]

Hi PMX users. I am in the process of ordering a PMX mount now (unfortunately the intro price is over and it is $1000 more now :sadeyes:). I read the posts about the black and grey belts - do they now automatically ship the grey belts or is this something I should be asking for? Thx, Peter

[rat156]

They should all ship with the grey belts now, no need to worry about it.

Cheers
Stuart

[baileys2611]

I'm enjoying this mount. Wanted to ask some advice though.

I've done my tpoint model, have good polar alignment and built a supermodel accurate to within 20 arc seconds. What's next?

I've tried automatic calibration but must need to experiment a bit with that, cannot get past the first point without it saying that there aren't enough stars, but do I need that now?

Also, does it need to be synchronised at all again, I'm permanently mounted on a pier and of course if I change equipment setup I will need to build another model, but now that it has it's model, do I need to add anything to that or is that all? I feel I'm missing something because this was actually pretty easy.

[frolinmod]

Well, you could program the PEC. That's very easy to do.

Patrick Wallace (the author of Tpoint) is of the opinion that it doesn't hurt (and could help) to sync into model at the start of each session. Mind you, Patrick doesn't have a Paramount. I just home and go with the Paramount, so long as I haven't changed anything since the previous evening.

20 arc-seconds isn't bad. If you do an automated calibration you'll probably be able to whack that down to 10 arc-seconds or so. You should definitely work on the "not enough stars" error because being able to plate solve is sort of important! Try binning 3x3 or 4x4 with your exposure set from 5 to 15 seconds. What's your FOV in arc-minutes? If it's really small, like under 10 arc-minutes on a side, then you may need to add the NOMAD catalog (Database Add On).

[baileys2611]

Ok, will fiddle and hexperiment a bit - with the NOMAD database :)

I'll also delve into PEC a little.

Thanks.

[baileys2611]

After looking at the database add-on, it's $219...which is a tiny bit rich at this point for me. I'll stick with manual for now I think.

[frolinmod]

Is your FOV really small? NOMAD is only needed for really small FOVs. I do just fine with Hipparcos-Tycho and UCAC4.

[graham.hobart]

just out of interest - how do you get these catalogues - (I have the GSC 1.1 which MAXIM DL advises which I can plate solve with my 120mm refractor and my QSI 600 series, but I will be using the QSI with an RC 8 on the PMX.
Do you reckon I should change my catalogue?
Graham.

[baileys2611]

Umm...yeah, another :ashamed: moment. Was using subframes when I was playing around so the FOV was tiny...hehe.

Now I know what I'm doing I'll change my setup from using the SCT to take pictures to using my APO 80mm (said in 'Arnie style') and possibly use two models, one for visual with the SCT and the other for photography with the APO. Logan suggested this to me a while back and I wanted to understand better what he meant by 'mirror flop' and 'flexure'. After reading the Tpoint report in detail, I see just how much error is introduced when you don't mount the tube using mount rings!

It's been an eye-opener for me. I don't think you can pay to understand this first hand...well actually you can because I did... but to experience it all first hand is better for me.

[Logieberra]

Simon, do you have UCAC4 database? I can arrange a copy for you. PM me.

[frolinmod]

Sorry, I was off on a trip to where there is no Internet, so I didn't see your question earlier. Fortunately it looks like you're getting a copy of UCAC4 now. You can also download it from me if need be if you can't get a copy on DVD.

[Logieberra]

Simon, direct download from Ernie might be easier?

[gregbradley]

You can get a free CD database from the US Naval Observatory. They sent me one.

Also - not enough stars - try longer exposure and bin it to pick up more stars. Don't do short exposures otherwise it may not pick up fainter stars.

You can also lower the threshold for this in the software.

I only got that message when there was cloud interfering.

Greg.

[baileys2611]

Got it, thank you all.

Sorry Ernie if I keep calling you 'Dan'...skydrive is leading me astray.

On the next clear night, I'll give it all a 'shot'.

[baileys2611]

Happy to report, after adding and compiling the database in TSX, I'm now plate solving without issue.

Thanks for the help. :thanx:

[frolinmod]

Cool.

After I installed UCAC4 and then turned off everything except Hipparcos-Tycho and UCAC4, my image links became much faster.

[NilRecurring]

When my MX is tracking a sidereal rate I notice that if I place my hand on the RA worm block cover I can feel a slight vibration - the isn't the normal "music" that the MX produces but rather a slower more of a 'chug chug' vibration. Is this normal?

I haven't ye had a first light due to bad weather otherwise I'd just measure my PE but I was hoping someone would help me out before I take the mount outside.

[Steffen]

I have never used (or seen first hand) Bisque's hardware, but from what I've read and seen in pictures it must be awesome.


Some of their software on the other hand I have experienced, "The Sky X" for Mac in my case. I'm hesitant to say this but it was so bad it was almost comical. It was practically unusable and, as software goes, the worst $100+ dollars I've ever spent.

The UI was full of cut-off buttons, text that wouldn't fit in the allotted space, and most spectacular of all DSO images that would rotate 360º around their centre when I shifted the FOV by 45º or so. When they started asking for more money after 12 months for bug fixes that never occurred I gave it a miss and filed it under mistakes to learn from.

Needless to say, I will never spend another cent on their wares, no matter how sexy and well made their mounts look (and probably are).

As software goes, I'm still not really satisfied with the choices I have today. My mainstay is SkySafari Pro, but it is lacking a lot of things I had gotten used to with XEphem during the nineties. Things like measuring angles between any two point in the sky, or solving for minima or maxima or plotting curves of any numeric value the programme could calculate. It seems that planetarium software mainly shoots for visual impact these days.



Cheers
Steffen.

[baileys2611]

Steffen,

Have you tried logging on to Software Bisque's forums and posting your specific concerns there? From what I have read on those forums, they are actively monitored by the team and they respond very quickly, doing their best to resolve issues with the software.

It can be frustrating, every now and then I still get a crash, but after troubleshooting it's often because of a device I've plugged in (latest troubleshooting was with a video grabber of all things!).

Daniel Bisque releases 'daily builds' frequently when you have a subscription to the software - it's the same concept as software maintenance agreements - which I have found made the software much more stable and in some cases adds some more functionality.

Mind, I'm no expert, I'm still learning with my hardware and software, after reading the manual many times over including the Tpoint add-on I find I'm still posing questions for those that are more experienced than I.

Speaking of which - question on modelling. Now I have my model accurate to 7 arc seconds, I want to build a second model for the C9.25 mounted in side-by-side with my APO. I've saved the current model. Is it just a matter of wiping it and starting again - except with the C9.25 and camera instead of the APO and camera, then saving that and when I want to use the APO loading that model?

So in other words if you're using two models, just a matter of loading whichever applies to the appropriate scope?

[baileys2611]

Nil,

Is the vibration with the scope loaded and balanced?

[NilRecurring]

Yes. Scope is balanced in both axes. The vibration is still there when everything is removed except the counterweight shaft so I don't think it had anything to do with the scope.

[baileys2611]

I'd take it out and see if it's making the scope 'bounce' when tracking.

I know the guys here have been talking about different types of belts that are grey or black in the worm drive assemblies, could it have something to do with setting the worm drives too tight or the belts moving at some stage?

[el_draco]

The problems you experienced are easily explained. (I have highlighted the relevant word above for clarity). TA..DA... problem identified...:rofl::rofl:

[frolinmod]

Steffen, your post is so opposite others experience that I quite frankly have to chalk it up to possible "blathering idiot user" until demonstrated otherwise. Although I'm not a MAC guy myself, MAC is the platform of choice for most of the Bisques and their sub-contractors. They use TheSkyX on MAC every day. You should upgrade to the latest version and latest daily build, then start reproducing and documenting this behavior in detail with posts on the Software Bisque support forum. Otherwise it seems you're just bad mouthing their software in public for the sheer fun of getting a rise out of people who should know better.