|
I use the Sky X on my PMX mount at my dark site observatory. I use either Sky 6 or Sky X at my home observatory.
Sky 6 is much more stable. The Sky X will drop out at times if there is any trouble whatsoever with the camera or mount. Sky 6 does not. I don't know why they let it do that but that is a major weakness.
Apart from that though Sky X is overall quite sophisticated and will do all jobs well.
I find the graphical interface of the Sky 6 much better. For example the NSEW buttons you click to orient the sky with are almost impossible to read on the Sky X. I use them all the time to see what is available to image.
I also find the setup of the graphics and display much harder on the Sky X. Part of that is a learning curve working out how things are different. But it does seem not particularly user friendly.
But integrating T-point and super models more easily is a big plus (once you figure out how to make it work - allow about a month to do that! correction 3 months!!).
No really its a good program but quite complex and a bit unstable. Also there is a question mark over whether PEC works in the southern hemisphere or not. At least for some users. Not sure how that issue with a few people panned out.
CCDsoft is a good acquisition program but the guts of it are now in the Sky X. One improvement over CCDSoft is the ability to program more than a 4 filtered imaging run. Say you want to do Ha LRGB and set it up then go to bed. You can't with CCDsoft (apparently its able to modified if you get the code). In Sky X you can program an unlimited number of filters. So you could do Ha S11 O111 LRGB if you wanted to. That would save me a lot of trouble at times as HaLRGB is a common imaging run for anything with a nebula in it.
Greg.
|