What guiding software do you use?

[troypiggo]

After a quick search around for guiding software alternatives and options, I have put together a list of what I understand to be most of the common ones. Please let me know which ones you use.

Current[1] list by order of popularity:

1. PHD Guiding (http://www.stark-labs.com/phdguiding.html)
2. Guidemaster (http://www.guidemaster.de/index_en.asp)
3. MaxIm DL (http://www.cyanogen.com/maxim_main.php)
4. CCDSoft
(http://www.bisque.com/Products/CCDSoft/)5. Don't autoguide or guide manually
6 (equal). Guidecam that doesn't require software
6 (equal). Envisage (http://www.meade.com/support/downloads.html) (voted for as "other software not mentioned specifically in poll)

[1] At at 26/7/09

[allan gould]

Good idea Troy. Tried them all but found GM to be the most stable , gave very good feed back. Problems with PhD guiding as it slowed down and eventually the guidestar drifted off. Very processor hungry.

[Quark]

Hi Troy,
My Anssen Technologies drive corrector is one of the first versions that Peter Mellander put out and doesn't have a guide port built into it, latter versions did have a guide port. I purchased mine back in 1994.

I use my DMK to track a guide star using Al's Reticle over the top of the IC Capture screen, making any adjustments manually with my cable remote for the drive corrector.

Cheers
Trevor

[toryglen-boy]

Phd

;)

[RobF]

Phd seems easiest & most troublefree beast, but guidemaster always seems to give me the best stars when I take the time to get it going :thumbsup:
Took longer than I would have liked to get it going with the Starshoot autoguider too...

[Matty P]

I've only ever used PHD for guiding. Quite reliable and very easy to use.

Only downside that it is a heavy load on the CPU. Slows down everything.

[Alchemy]

i used to use guidedog, but when upgraded the guidecamera (DMK) it did not work so went to PHD.

i have had no real problems with phd so until a better one comes along (free) will stick with it.

[iceman]

I've only ever used PHD and haven't really had any problems with it. But I haven't done any guided photography in about 6 months!!

[Dennis]

I use CCDSoft when just using the ST7 standalone and PHD when using the side by side set up. The poll only allows for a single vote, so I cannot vote, otherwise I would only be telling half the truth!

Cheers

Dennis

[troypiggo]

In the title I asked if you use more than one, what is your favoured one ;)

[Dennis]

Whoops, silly me…oh, that title, I see it now!:doh:

Cheers

Dennis

[beren]

I use a Sbig St-4 standalone guider plus CCDsoft when using a Sbig camera. The St-4 has worked a treat so easy to use, CCDsoft no problems either except initial user {:P} error figuring out the calibration process. CCDsoft has the full image processing side to it as well but I'm not keen on it. I use to use Astroart3 pretty good too.
Having a mount that tracks well and the PE relatively smooth will make guiding much easier to achieve regardless what software you use.

[peter_4059]

Great poll Troy - I like the way you've framed the questions. I'm using Guidemaster after a long spell with PHD because I prefer the feedback it provides although PHD is clearly a simpler interface. I have no data to substantiate any claim however the trend I see from EQMOD on the guiding corrections looks much smoother with Guidemaster than what I get with PHD.

[jase]

I'm kind of confused by the questions... Is there a reason why PHD is listed twice? :shrug:

The second option is somewhat mute IMO and doesn't really provide much value if the respondents don't detail what other guiding software they've tried and their reasoning for the change to PHD (other than the obvious that its free).

The principle behind guiding is basic (evaluate guide star centroid position, move mount in x and/or y axis), yet I'm amazed of how many people struggle with it. More than likely most of the issues are due to poor equipment set up such as polar alignment or failure to calibrate often if your software doesn't take into consideration the telescope DEC coords etc. All software can do a good job at it. There are others that go beyond the norm with advanced features, bells and whistles, but at the end of the night they all perform the same function.

[troypiggo]

I listed PHD twice because I anticipated it to be very popular, and I know many would have been recommended to use it first up because of its simplicity. I also wanted to see how many people had actually tried and used other software, but came back to PHD because they thought it was better, at least for them.



It's not moot, but I take your point. It's sufficient for me to just know that they've tried other software but have a preference, for one reason or another, to use PHD. Why bother trying the software that they've rejected? There must be a reason for it.



I don't struggle with the concept of guiding, and all software does not necessarily do a good job of it. Whether that conclusion is arrived by measured performance or users' perception, it doesn't matter. Give a group of astrophotographers more than one option for choosing guiding software and you're going to a spread of preferences depending on different people's experiences and hardware configurations I guess. This is evidenced by the results of the poll above.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the weightings and preferences, and I hope that those searching in the archives in the future may value this little poll to help narrow down the popular choices. If nothing else, it should provide a fairly central list of software options.

[jase]

Fair enough Troy. Thanks for the clarification.

I feel like I'm stating the obviously here, but it should be noted that software alone doesn't guarantee successful guiding. Items such as guide star intensity, proximity to other stars, the S/N ratio, guider sensitivity etc (too many factors to conclusively list here) influence the success. User knowledge also plays a significant role in the equation, though I will acknowledge software can make a considerable difference.

Intelligent and flexible guiding can provide marked improvements. Tools such as CCDAP or ACP that overlay traditional data acquisition software used for guiding can take much of the guess work out of the guiding process allowing the user to focus on other activities. You've only got to see how many free and feature rich guider related scripts are available in programs such as MaximDL to realise how far guiding developments have come;

Pinpoint guider calibration plugin (http://winfij.homeip.net/maximdl/pinpointcalibration.html) - This plugin allows fast and accurate guider calibration by using a Pinpoint solved guider image.

Multi-star guiding plugin (http://winfij.homeip.net/maximdl/multiguide.html) - Uses the average error from multiple stars to guide on, allowing the use of fainter stars.

Manual guide star calibration plugin (http://winfij.homeip.net/maximdl/manualcalibration.html) - Allows the operator to manually select the guide star position during guider calibration.

Guider settling script plugin (http://winfij.homeip.net/maximdl/guider_settle.html) - Ensures the guider error drops below specified threshold between exposures.

Now as a disclaimer, don't rush off to purchase MaximDL. If the tool you're currently using works fine, then there's no reason to change. As previously noted, software is simply one of the many factors to consider in achieving successful guiding. You are more than likely to experience guiding issues due to your specific scope set up or lack of knowledge, rather than the software itself.

If you're looking for an excellent reference to guiding I would suggest you read the attached.

Cheers

[rogerg]

I would have liked to select more than one ... I chose CCDSoft because it's the one I use most, but I have also had success at different times with GuideDog and to a lesser degree PHD. I've had the most troubles with PHD.

[Dennis]

For those having troubles with PHD, have you used the “Enable Graph” Function under the Tools Menu?

This will display a graph with real time x-y corrections and an “Oscillation Index” value.

I only found this the other evening and the x-y plots were typically between ± 0.2 to 0.4 and my OI varied from 0.41 to 0.48. My Aggressiveness was 50% and Hysteresis at 10%.

Cheers

Dennis

[troypiggo]

Thanks Jase and Dennis. Got some more reading to do :)

I'm doing some experimenting with PHD (I've reinstalled it along with my camera drivers in an effort to resurrect it), Guidemaster, EQAlign, Metaguide and whatever else is free :)

Will post my thoughts when done.

[RobF]

Yep. I still reckon Guidemaster has more control and better displays for feedback on tracking etc. Phd is so good and so many people happy with it don't want to bag it though....

[peter_4059]

Jase,

Thanks for the PDF article - very interesting reading.

[Terry B]

I have done the opposite of the suggestion in the poll.
I started with PHD, found it crashed lots, tried guidemaster and like it. I then tried PHD again but still found it unstable compared to guidemaster and have gone back to guidemaster.
It gives me much easier control and never crashed whilst I find that PHD will freeze regularly

[Dennis]

As I use the (original) Orion Deep Space Star Shooter (ODSSS) as my guide camera, unfortunately I can’t use Guidemaster or Metaguide, although I did try Metaguide recently with my DMK21AF04.AS and it worked fine.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

PHD has always been stable with my (original) Orion Deep Space Star Shooter although when I have CCDSoft running for my SBIG ST7 as well as The Sky 6 Pro for controlling the mount, PHD appears to take quite some time to respond to e.g. simply dragging the PHD Window, or, stopping the auto guiding.

That’s on a 6 year old IBM ThinkPad R40 with Centrino 1.4G CPU and 512MB RAM.

Cheers

Dennis

PS – I know I should never write that PHD has always been stable. This rash act will undoubtedly cause it to crash the next time I use it!!!!:lol:

[Tandum]

I've never had this problem but a few people have said this, Doug(Hagar) being the last one I saw. His problems went away when he changed to another PC, go figure :shrug:

[allan gould]

We are lucky that we have a great choice of programs with the added benefit that most are free. I guess it really comes down to using the program that works best with your combination of laptop, camera, and other peripherals. Big cheer for PhD and Guimaster.

[[1ponders]]

I used to use K3CCDTools. Tried guidedog, guidemaster and most of the others. Unfortunately before the time of GPUSB so couldn't get most of them to talk to my guide emulator that I used with the Losmandy Digital Drive. I haven't tried them since geting the GPUSB, but now I use pHD pretty much exclusively unless I'm SBIGing then I use CCDSoft.

If I'm out in the field away from 240V I use my TV Guider. Even at home it's a toss up at times whether to use pHD or the TV Guider. pHD usually wins 'cos I've already got the laptop out and going connected to other gear. TV Guider is sweet to use though for a stand alone.

[leon]

PHD for me, so far, it has proved very effective and simple to use and hasn't let me down as yet.

Leon

[troypiggo]

Wow. While I was expecting PHD to be a favourite among users, I wasn't expecting it to dominate so much - nearly 60% of users. And 40% of them have tried other software and switched back. Interesting.

Keep them votes and comments coming please!

[Bassnut]

The main reason I use Maxum DL is it has a guideing error graph. Its been the single best tool in setting guiding parameters and stabilising guiding, allowing endless tweaking until it was just as best as I could get it (often under 2 arc secs RMS without PEC). Wouldve been impossible without it. Does PHD have an error graph?.

[allan gould]

No but Guidemaster does as well as several features not in PhD

[Dennis]

Verbatim from Stark Labs PHD Guiding webpage (http://www.stark-labs.com/phdguiding.html), (with my bold highlighting):

“The results are in from the 2007 AstroPhoto Insight survey run by SkyInsight and in the category of Guiding Software, there was a stand-out winner - PHD Guiding. Out of over 700 votes, PHD Guiding came in #1, beating the second most popular piece of software, the de facto standard Maxim DL, by over 50%. In fact, it did better than ACP, Astro IIDC, Equinox, Guide Dog, GuideMaster, K3CCDTools, Maxim Essentials, Maxim DSLR, and Meade Envisage... combined! I knew many people used PHD Guiding, but to say I was stunned at these results is an understatement on a grand scale. I wrote PHD Guiding to take the hassle out of accurate autoguiding and I give it away free as a way to help pay back the amateur community I've gotten so much from. With results like these, it's clear PHD Guiding has helped a lot of amateurs enjoy the hobby more and take better shots. Thank you all for helping make PHD Guiding what it is today.”

Cheers

Dennis

[g__day]

I've switched from PHD to MaximDL back to PHD so I have a few comments.

First I image at long focal lengths (2300mm) for say 10, 20 or 30 minute shots maximum. I use a Lumicon OAG into a Meade DSI II Pro Mono 2*2 binned. So by my calculations each pixel in PHD is 2.2 arc seconds and in my main DSLR each pixel is 0.7 arc seconds.

Yesterday I shot M16 and combined just over 3 hours of shots (7 shots) - in DeepSkyStacker and was interested in the stacking error to give me a sense of the guiding precision between frames. The errors in pixels (dx, dy) from the first shot were (-0.01, -0.30), (-0.76, 0.21), (0.15, 0.08), (-0.25, 0.19), (0.12, 0.18) and (0.18, -1.25). So read that back as I understand the stacking processes - over 3 hours using combinations of 10 to 30 minute shots the net tracking error was 0.35 arc seconds - which is pretty impressive!

I usually guide on 3 second shots, and I focused first the main camera (using a Bhatinov mask) then the OAG CCD (Bhatinov mask on Jupiter - works well)! I find that either MaximDL 4.5 or PHD 1.10.6 do an equivalent job judging by tracking error in the correction graphs. MaximDL is more sophisticated - PHD appears simpler to use.

With PHD (given you have a tight, bright but not over saturated star - so the centroid calculation is fine) - you still have to think through your controls carefully.

For instance how do you minimise seeing errors (think of this as a signal / noise challenge - balancing false positives (over-steering) vs false negative (under correcting) guide commands):

1. Take longer shots so each shot averages the seeing wobble (bloating stars slightly) or
2. Take shorter shots and lower the RA aggressiveness to the smallest value that will track well without over shooting (but takes longer to correct, minimising over corrections though).

You need to see how stars are jumping at your image scale to guess this one right.

PHD can see well down into sub pixel movements - reasonable case 0.10 pixels, best case 0.01 pixels accordng to Craig. But take my case where seeing pixel is 2.2 arc seconds (with only average seeing conditions). Do I really think trying to track with 0.22 or even 0.44 arc second precision is optimal and achievable - that may be over reaching. The higher I raise minimum distance before a pulse is sent - the more I will not send false positive guide commands causing yo-yoing due to seeing errors (but the more true errors I let in). You have to get a feel for this.

Next is Hystersis in RA - some nights I set the RA aggressiveness to 30%, hystersis to 40% and get great results. I think by the screen shots Craig did in a debug run 1.10.7 will have a RMS error tracking bar - this will help optimising setting PHD parameters. Note Craig often seems to debug PHD on very short focal length shots - so his tracking graph is a near perfect straight line - but not as good as mine < +/- 1 arc second traking error). If I set RA aggressiveness right down OSC index goes from about 0.45 down below 0.20 - but occassionally corrections get large - +/- 1.5 - 2 pixels. With it higher > 75% OSC Index is around .045 but errors tend to stay within +/- 1 pixel.

Guiding isn't too hard - guiding really well is very challenging. My guiding is now sub arc second (but I still think there is room for a bit more improvement). Having used PHD for 2 years now and watched it grow I am very fond of it. I love MaximDLs plug ins - Ijust haven't invested sufficient time to try and master it.

I wish all these guide programs had a really smart brain to analyse your set up and optimise their parameters. I am trying to discover how to optimise auto-guiding - but its more brute force then elegance at present.

As a suggestion - why not have a thread on how to optimise PHD - folk can try different parameter settings so we can get more data on to optimise the parameters.

As a hint do you turn on PHDs error longs and look at how it is deciding how and when to switch and how far to correct? Do you run PHD Analyser on the normal log to check for bias or over correction in your tracking runs?

From experience guiding programs require significant investment to tune to their full capabilites - but the results once you get there are impressive!

Matt

PS

Fred - both PHD and MaximDL having tracking graphs - I like MaximDL's better as there are seperate graphs for each axis, whereas PHD super-imposes the errors on the one graph. However PHDs error log is a grat idea - it shows you how PHDs brain is thinking at each step, whether it is thicking to switch direction (and why) so - so you can get alot of control over how it is performing and why.

[Merlin66]

I use a QHY5 as a guider ( 12" Lx200, HEQ5pro) and AstroArt4.

[troypiggo]

Matthew - thanks for the very detailed explanation! I'll have to admit I have nowhere near the depth of understanding of PHD that you have, so will try to tinker with your suggestions next time I test it.

[citivolus]

I unfortunately have to change my answer from Maxim DL to PHD, as Maxim does not work with the DMK 41 cameras. There is a third party written ASCOM driver in development, however all I get is a black image with that. TIS blames Maxim and states that the issue is out of their hands, and Difraction Limited have been silent on the issue.

I find it amusing that a free product has better compatibility than an expensive commercial one.

[multiweb]

I have used PHD for years. That's the first and only program I ever used for guiding so I can't really compare. IMHO guiding is the icing on the cake. Doesn't matter what software you use. If your mount can't react exactly to guiding pulses because of mechanical limitations or can't track properly on its own for a reasonable amount of time there is no guiding program that's going to "correct it all" for you. I think over time people have become too reliant on auto-guiding and cut corners in setting up more and more often ...... myself included :P ;)

[jjjnettie]

PHD
It does crash on me at times. But that's probably due to the fact that my lappy is quite old.

[Robbie]

Yep PHD everything else I tried was a pain in the butt
PHD was so simple it made all others look lame.
Loaded it and never had any problems from then on.

[Bassnut]

Robbies post was 27/11, yet shows as today, whats up mods?

[Octane]

Fred,

It means someone's voted in the poll. That's all.

H

[danielsun]

Thanks for the detailed post Mathew,
I have only ever used PHD so I can't coment on others but since Martin (Mill) helped me get going I am now getting the hang of PHD and found that you really have to spend the time experimenting with settings and that also depends on what part of the sky you are pointing at.
Weight is also critical, I found that having a pefectly balanced scope is crucial for accurate guiding which most probably already know.
I use PHD with EQ MOD and works well for me.:)

Cheers Daniel.

[mithrandir]

That's sort of the opposite to some people's conclusions. I find PHD tracks better with the load slightly east heavy. It holds some weight on the RA worm so it is always pushing and things like wind have less effect.

It does mean I have to rebalance by moving one weight about an inch after a meridian flip.

[danielsun]

Actually your right Andrew, ever so slight East heavy is good.

Cheers Daniel.

[spacezebra]

PHD for me.

Cheers Petra d.

[leon]

Yep I to have mine East heavy ever so slightly, I works for me.

leon

[jjjnettie]

Works for me too.
Chris (omaroo) put me on to that. I'm ever so grateful for the tip too.

[g__day]

Must say PHD 1.12.4 is pretty good software - used correctly. I still think you need to understand correcting seeing errors versus real tracking errors and wished PHD assessed backlash in a more sophisticated way.

Craig has put the controls for the main parameters for PHD onto the graph - so you can change settings on the fly and see immediately if this improves tracking or not. I still wish there was some fuzzy logic to do a bit of a Monte Carlo diagnostic on these key parameters (altering each on in turn by a set delta to see if tracking gets better or worse), Sure it would take a while - but on a bad seeing night - leave it running for a few hours then you'd have detailed information on both optimal settings and how much better the best settings are from other settings.

Lastly I wish Craig would finally add multi-star guiding (like the add on for MaximDL that achieves multi star guiding). I found an article on this I sent Craig; it determined once you guide on the averaged movements of 5+ stars - seeing errors decrease by about 50% - a worthwhile gain in my eyes!

[RobF]

Matthew I've never had any luck getting that multi star plugin for Maxim to co-operate. Do you use it regularly?

[g__day]

No I don't - I went back to the simplicity of PHD - as Mamim running proved invasive with the image capture of the Canon EOS driver I used. But I did pass on the research data I found to Craig for consideration - hope he eventually gets round to including it when life gets a bit less busy for him!

Matt

[RobF]

Ta. Sounds like Phd continues to keep getting better and better for those that use.

[Geoff45]

This is not surprising. PHD is free and works quite well. Maxim works a little better (IMO), but costs $500. Good freeware is always going to win over good costware.
Geoff

[troypiggo]

Since posting this thread, I've recently bought MaxIm. It's a steep learning curve, and I'm comfortable using MaxIm for the image capture, even calibrating and stacking etc. But I hadn't used it for guiding. I was going to give it a go up at Astrofest the last week, but could see I was going to lose a bit too much of my only 2 nights there learning, so went back to good ol' PHD. I do intend to persevere and play with MaxIm's guiding at home and see if I can get it tweaked.

[jase]

Does PHD handle telescope declination changes automatically or do you need to recalibrate every time you change to another target of a different dec?

[multiweb]

As a rule always recalibrate in the part of the sky you're going to image in. There are far too many variables mostly shifts in balance. Takes only a couple of minutes and saves a lot of heartaches. Not worth the shortcut.

[jase]

Ah, but thats the catch Marc. MaximDL when connected to your scope via ASCOM will read the declination information and use this to compensate for guider movement. Providing you get good calibration once (nice red L shape indicating movement), then you can technically shoot anywhere in the sky and not recalibrate. I've not recalibrated for over six months and shoot objects at various declinations. Guiding is spot on. If however you have a temporary set up in which you setup and tear down each night, changes to the guider PA will alter the calibration.

[multiweb]

I'm afraid PHD is not that advanced. Does Maxim re-acquire a star when you slew to different coordinates as well?
What you are saying about calibrating once. There are other variables such as mount mechanics, squareness of the shafts and gears, etc... Does maxim gets this info from the mount as well, like what Gemini does when you build a model?

[troypiggo]

Must admit I recalibrate every time I slew to different part of sky or meridian flip.

[jase]

After a slew to different coordinates, you simply take a guider image and then click on guide button. MaximDL will automatically select the most suitable guide star and start guiding. Of course you can override Maxim's guide star selection process if you choose but its 99% accurate in selecting a guide star thats away from other stars for clean centroid calculations. MaximDL will also handle pier flips (meridian flips) where the RA/Dec corrections alter depending on which side the telescope mount is pointing. This is handled automatically.

[Terry B]

The need to recalibrate is why I rarely use PHD. I use guidemaster even though it is old. I can reuse the calibration from previous nights. Most of my imaging is for photometry targets and I don't need perfect guiding and it is close enough to use the old calibrations.

[multiweb]

I'm going to be using Maxim soon to guide with the mono and the AO so it'll be interesting. Sounds like you can do a lot more with it. With PHD I always recalibrate. I think you need too. That's why a lot of people are getting caught with DEC drifts and overshoot of all kinds I guess.

[netwolf]

Do Maxim or CCDsoft talk to PHD? Just wondering how you might get the Dithering to work if your capture program does not talk to the Guide program.

[jase]

Apologies Marc, I only glanced at this comment and failed to respond in my original post.

No, MaximDL will not take into consideration the variables you note such as mount mechanics etc., when guiding. Perhaps I should flip the table and challenge you to name guiding software that does. ;) Despite what many believe, recalibration doesn't do this either. For example, there maybe a spot on the worm gear that causes the mount to run faster than true RA. As calibration doesn't process a full worm rotation to detect this, it doesn't know about it. It is only picked up in regular guiding corrections.

Point being is that guiding should be seen as a last resort, not a band-aid to poor set up issues. Start with the basics, get your rig balanced, train periodic error correction, precisely polar align etc. Ultimately the goal is to get the set up tracking as good as possible. When this has been achieved you'll get the most out of guiding.

I may have painted a picture that MaximDL does it all and then some. I will admit its guiding capabilities are very strong, probably the best on the market however all software has its pros/cons. Regardless of the software used, guiding is reactive tool. As highlighted, there are many things that can be done to an imaging rig to improve performance or should I say make it proactive. As the saying goes, prevention is better than a cure...and that cure is guiding.

[Geoff45]

Once i set up my equipment i calibrate once with Maxim on the the first night, then don't do it again unless I move the camera or take down and set up again.
Geoff

[multiweb]

PHD doesn't either. I tought maybe Maxim did. I don't know of any software that takes those into consideration. I think the GCC with the G11 uses this info for GOTO accuracy only.


Agreed. But good loaded PEC data would take care of that then guiding on top.




I agree with all that you say for a permanent set-up that you can tune iteratively night after night closing down towards a perfect solution but on the field without guiding I'd be up the s||t creek. In practice I have limited time to set-up, align and guide to maximize my imaging time so there's a lot of compromise and good enough is just that. One day if I get an obs maybe I'll look into doing things the right way. :)

[troypiggo]

I don't think so. Not from my limited knowledge of MaxIm, anyway. I know Nebulosity can talk to the PHD server and do the dithering, but they're both written by Mr Stark so that makes sense.

[multiweb]

I would have thought Maxim capable of dithering on its own. It's gotta be. :question: I use dithering in Neb all the time. It also good to bump the mount now and then so it doesn't go to sleep and start drifting. :P

[Bassnut]

Yes it does, via guide or mount offset.

[multiweb]

Cool. I'm going to have to learn it now because it is the only thing that will run my AO.

[troypiggo]

It does. I was responding to a question about it talking to phd, which is different to it dithering it's own guiding.

[ballaratdragons]

I find the choices a bit twisted by your own bias. ;)
Not hard to tell you like PHD. :lol:

My guiding experiences started with GuideDog, which is reasonable. But I soon changed to Guidemaster and was amazed at the simplicity and quality of it.
It made GuideDog look like a toy.

What I like about Guidemaster is the ease of use, simplicity in layout, accuracy, and it is definitely not clunky. The onscreen image is very crisp with nice stars, and the guiding error graphs are great.
Not once have I ever had a problem with Guidemaster in 5 years of using it.

I did try PHD and gave up. Too clunky.
At Astro Camp I like to watch others at work, and the amount of times I see others struggle to get PHD working 'just right' is too many.

PHD may suit a lot of people, but my personal choice is guidemaster :thumbsup:

[Tandum]

It doesn't want to guide for me after a flip, I've tried all the options to reverse axis, but it just pushes the star away, so I've been recalibrating. What am I doing wrong?

[troypiggo]

Actually, I don't like PHD over anything else. At the time I created this poll, I was very frustrated with how resource hungry PHD and was looking for alternatives. As I said earlier in this thread, the only reason I had a few options there for PHD was that I expected it to be the most popular and was interested to see a bit more of a breakup of the results.

I have MaxIm now and the next time I set up it will be to learn and get the guiding working on my gear with it.

[ballaratdragons]

:thumbsup:

[Tandum]

I found it, Auto Pier Flip has to be ticked. It worked for me tonight :thumbsup:

[RB]

Haven't tried any other software, I'm very happy with PHD and never had any issues.

[p1taylor]

Same here PHD never had any trouble with it.

peter

[Paul Haese]

Well I started with PHD, but have now moved onto MaximDL which is better at guiding. PHD is great with simplicity but MaximDL is the same, but had move control over the values you can set.

I can recommend PHD for beginners and then Maxim for more advanced needs.

[graham.hobart]

I want to try Maxim DL but have had issues with it recognising the SSAG. Anyone else had this issue?
It's usually when I have had a DSLR or ccd selected as first camera and had PHD running before hand.
Any tips?
Graham

[troypiggo]

Maybe start a new thread on it? But did you make sure PHD was closed and/or not still connected to the camera. I don't have a SSAG, but use a QHY5. I know there are driver issues there, and in Maxim have to select it as "ASCOM" camera/driver for camera 2.

[Paul Haese]

Nver had a problem with the SSAG being recognised.

[2stroke]

PHD because its stand for Poon Handling Dude bahahah