Software Bisque PMX mount quick review

[gregbradley]

It really is a bit early days for me with this mount as even though I have had it for a while I have not used it that much so far.

It certainly holds a lot of promise with all its marketed features but how does it stack up in actual use?

The 3 way switch that allows easy balancing and a lock setting for travel sounds great. It is very convenient but PME can do this fairly easily by loosening the lock knobs. In practice though this 3 way switch has meant a more complex engineered system and it seems it is fussy and prone to needing delicate adjustment or the gears can slip or the motor stall. Software Bisque gives you a pdf document about how to adjust it (great just what you want to do on your brand new $11,000 mount - fix up someone elses error). But it lacks some vital data and could fail. So I wasn't very happy about that.

The mount comes with an impressive suite of software. However in practice I have found it is not so impressive. The Sky X is far less robust and reliable compared with the Sky 6. I have never had the Sky 6 time out, error out or stop for any reason but the Sky X will quite easily. At it needs is something like a power interruption to the mount, a hub issue with your camera through the hub or some such. Its done it to me quite a few times.


The supplied PEC software in the Sky X is advertised as taking the mount down to 1 arc sec or less.

I know several who have been unable to get it to work and I did exactly as per the instructions and the resulting curve was odd and it did not improve tracking one bit. In fact it appears to be bugged software on some setups as it will not load the resulting curve properly but again its early days and I need to try again.

It would be a nice touch if SB preloaded the PEC for you like AstroPhysics does with their mounts. It can be a complex action creating a PE curve. Not as easy as you would think.

T-point is a great piece of software. In the Sky X it promises to be improved. I have found the opposite. It is very very hard to setup to work and the manual appears to be lacking in detail to get it to work.
I spent many hours trying to get it to work and eventually got it to work sometimes and not others. I have a PME also and once I got t-point sorted on that setup it was very reliable even if it does not take the final computations as far as the Sky X version.

The mount apart from that is well thought out and appears to be well made. Customer support is poor though, if you post a problem you will more than likely be ignored and other users handle your question instead - often not really knowing but helpful nonetheless.

So its not all green on the PMX side of the hill!

I think once setup and sorted it will be a nice mount and initial images weren't too bad but if you are thinking of getting one keep in mind it is quite complex, expect problems, expect difficulty sorting the fussy (perhaps still some bugs) software and you may even be required to be a field mechanic.

I am experienced in handling my PME mount which has been a real pleasure and is a superb mount. PMX has promise but its not perfect and it sure isn't a PME.

Greg.

[DavidTrap]

Sounds like a pretty honest appraisal Greg - thanks for laying it all out there.

DT

[cventer]

I can agree wih some of what Greg posts and other parts I have had more luck.

The pec issue is definitely a problem. I had to resort to using pempro to get a decent pec curve loaded into my PMX.

Software wise the SkyX and T-point have been flawless for me. Once I tweaked a few parameters in sky x all has been good. The polar alignment assistance it gives has been amazing.

Mechanically wise I has some issues initially when I got my mount that the pe was higher than advertised. I was promptly sent a new worm and this sorted the issue out for me. Had none of the balance cam slipping issues reported. I love the clutch less design and ability to easily balance or lock the scope.

I have heard of a few others having balance and cam slipping issues so there may be a design issue to look into here, but I also suspect they have sold a lot of these and does not seem to be a lot of noise about this.

I would definately say this is no mount for a beginner. Lots of software to all work together to ensure you get the best out of it.

Once done though its pretty set and forget. I open my roof and am auto guiding and imaging within 5 minutes.

My current challenge is getting ccd auto pilot to make it all work together with focusmax and other software for unattended imaging.

[Bassnut]

Excellent review Greg, as usual. I hope the new PME2 doesn't have issues you describe, given it uses the same control system as the PMX.

[frolinmod]

I realize your post mainly concerns the PMX, but you've also made some general statements that I think may not be generalizable and may only apply to the MX and not the ME.


I don't think that's TheSkyX's fault. I think that's the MKS-5000 doing that. I don't have any such problem with my ME.


And it does with my ME. My ME starts with three arc seconds peak-to-peak. After training it is very much sub arc second. So I think any problems here are unique to the MX.


I disagree 110%. I find it entirely trivial to use, easier and more reliable than TheSky6 ever was and it gives very good results.


I disagree here as well. Customer support is slow, but not poor. It's slow because it is handled via forum posts. The back and forth can go on for weeks, particularly if the person reporting the problem does not do their homework, plays dense or has to be prompted to do things every step of the way. I'm NOT saying that's you Greg.


This is true and it concerns me. The PME II uses the same MKS-5000 control system as the PMX. If PMX users are having trouble, PME II users are going to have trouble too. The PMX is the canary on the coal mine and so far it appears the canary may be in some distress.


Very true.

[gregbradley]

Yes PME is quite different and I think the difference is its a mature platform and had years to refine out any bugs.

The three way switch is not something I would want again though.

The other bugs I mention are PMX specific and I was not referring to my PME at all. Really PMX issues boil down to slipping cam on the 3 way switch, PEC not loading and working reliably, t-point seems to me to be more difficult than with PME and the Sky (more complex, hidden settings not mentioned in the manual that make a difference etc).

T-point is not that big of a deal as it will work eventually if you work at it hard enough. Its just not easy.

So bottom line is the mount has potential but as Chris summed it up its not a mount for the faint hearted or someone who wants to set it up and be imaging straight away. It has a level of complexity to it that could see many nights setting and refining and debugging and learning before it reaches it optimum performance.

I guess I was particularly peeved when I only go to my dark site infrequently and then its bugged and does not perform wasting the few nights I had.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

My experience with the MX has been mostly great. The only real problem I have had/having is the PE. My error is twice what it should be. I am disappointed with this, but not worried.
I contacted Software Bisque about the problem and they are in the process of sorting it out. They are shipping out a new worm block for me to install. They have been timely and helpful with their response.
As it has been stated. They would be doing themselves a favour if they adopted an approach like Astro Physics and tested the tracking performance of each mount before it was shipped.

I think the service is great, all I had to do was send them some tracking logs and a video of the problem and they are sending me out a replacement.
The great thing is I can install this myself, I do not have to send my mount back to the supplier for a warranty job, no costly return shipping or having to be without my mount for months.
I don't know of many manufactures that would take your word for it and then allow you to cary out the repair yourself. (Quite exceptional!)

I have found Sky X very easy to use. T point is great the pointing accuracy of the mount is brilliant. I average about 10 arc sec RMS even with an out of spec worm. Pro Track works well, cleaning up any tube flexure, misalignments etc.

Polar alignment is so easy and accurate, not having to drift align is a pleasure.
I am running Sky X on a Mac so I would expect it to be good.

To be fair I have had some trouble with the latest daily build, I am sure this will be fixed in the next one.

That brings me to my next point. The software is always being updated, problems are fixed promptly and suggestions are always noted. They have always responded to my posts.

I agree with Greg that the user guide lacks information and some of the instructions are hard to understand. But nothing that should stop you from using the mount.

In all, I would recommend the mount to anyone. I have been out of astronomy for a long time and have had no experience with a computerised mount. I have found it very easy to use.

Phil

[Logieberra]

I can't reply in full at the moment (too difficult on Android), but as an MX owner and user I disagree with the majority of the review, particularly the remarks on SB service.

Greg, I read your recent posts on the SB forum. You're not happy at this present moment and, as such, perhaps it's not the best time to write an objective and balanced review.... Logan.

[gregbradley]

Greg, I read your recent posts on the SB forum. You're not happy at this present moment and, as such, perhaps it's not the best time to write an objective and balanced review.... Logan.[/QUOTE]


True.
Greg.

[gregbradley]

That's true. I definitely am annoyed with it at the moment but on the other hand there are plenty of posts from others showing difficulty with the mount. Usually the slipping cam, bad PE outside spec, difficulty or can't get PEC working.

SB service I probably being quick to complain but Planewave or Mountain Instruments or AP run a very high standard and SB is competing against these companies and the competition is much faster and easier to communicate with and get something resolved.



Gee whiz Phil you are easy going. Bad PE and still happy after $11K spent? I suppose if SB is very accomodating to problems then a lot is forgiven. It also sounds like poor worms were common and its a known issue. I think the mount received massive response and the problems they faced were more about how to get them out the door and QC issues were not settled well. Much like Nikon and the D800 with its 10-40% poorly aligned AF module ( reported as now being corrected in latest production, finally).

The whole premise of paying that sort of money for a high end mount is to get low PE otherwise the bells and whistles amount to nothing.

But if you persevere with the teething difficulties and get it all sorted you will end up with a nice mount as Chris has done. The point being at $11K cost you expect higher QC and not having to fiddle with it at home. That's more what you expect from Sywatcher but then its price reflects that.

I would seriously consider an AP mount like AP1200 over the PMX even if it costs a bit more. I have never heard of AP1200 issues - never. Something to consider.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

Yeah I am fairly easy going:), but I would be the first to get legal and crack heads if there was nothing being done.:tasdevil:

You are right, I would have expected the worm to have been within spec. I think there are plenty of owners who have mounts that are, just not you or I and a few others.


I don't understand why they don't test and load PEC data before it leaves the factory. I guess it would add to the cost but only slightly.

I would hope that any new mounts that they are selling would be checked before they were shipped.

I still think it is a great mount and software combo and once the new worm block is in it will be sweet.

It is unfortunate that these problems have happened but at least Software Bisque is taking responsibility.

cheers

Phil

[cventer]

To add some further perspective to my comments this not being a beginner mount that probably has more to do with if you plan on using the advanced software features like pro track and automated t point runs.

On its own without these features it's still a heck of a mount. Even for portable use.

If you have the time accurate on your pc, because of the homing feature that homes within arc seconds. You can get set up very quickly in the field. Simply connect mount to sky x. Home the mount. Then slew to a bright star within 30 degrees of scp. Use the mount physical adjusters to center the star in your eyepiece or ccd camera. You will now be within 3 to 4 arc minutes of the pole. How many other mounts can do that ? Combine that with built in USB hub and built in through mount power cables it's pretty cool.

Agree on the QC issue though. These mounts should not be leaving factory with defects. Cam should be set properly and worms should be within spec. It's a shame because its such an amazing bit of gear when it performs no spec. Good news is bisque will eventually get it sorted and get instructions more clear for those with less experience.

I think the cam design is pretty elegant and the simple switch that allow you to move from balance to track to lock is excellent. A few people have reported issues however including Greg so there must be issues with how the preload is set from factory on some mounts. What they do need to do is ship a bigger hex bolt on the cam stop adjuster. I stripped that sucker so easily and I know a few others have. There is room for a deeper bigger socket head under the motor cover.

The creating pec curve does seem to be harder than it needs to be. In theory so simple but seems to give many people issues. I wonder if we did a poll on bisque forum if this is related to Southern Hemisphere users ? I would gladly pay another few hundred for them to load this for us before it leaves factory.

[issdaol]

Hi Greg,

Interesting to see a review like this on the Paramount.

I was considering one as an additional mount for a new scope, but after reading this may put those plans on hold as it has prompted me to read other threads here and on other sites which seem to reflect many of the same points.

IMHO if you spend premium dollars on a premium mount it should be a pretty solid purchase and backed up accordingly.

My EM400 does not have inbuilt PE or Parking but everything else is rock solid so I may as well just stay with that or goto the EM500 or a AP mount.

Cheers

[frolinmod]

Phil sure is a popular name!

What gets a lot of people is the sometimes slow turnaround on the support forum. Time differences between Colorado and Australia are no fun either. Some support forum posts can sometimes fall between the cracks, particularly the over the weekend posts. The Bisques also take off for shows like the recent PATS, leaving no one responding to forum posts while they're gone. In my observation, the best time to post for immediate response is during the work week Tuesday to Thursday between 7 AM and noon Colorado time.

When posting to the forum, if you want quick response, it helps to have the problem well documented with your very first post. Try to anticipate questions and have answers. Otherwise the back and forth is going to be frustrating. The forum has an option to notify you via email when a reply is posted. I recommend using that feature.

Polar alignment with this mount is trivial. Though you can go overboard and spend several full nights on it if you're into that sort of thing. No doubt well worth doing if you have a permanent pier.

Training the PEC with this mount is trivial. Takes 30 minutes if you do it right. 15 additional minutes (for a final verification run) if you guessed wrong on the East/West check box. Although one guy can't seem to get his PEC to save to the mount, he probably just needs a new MKS-5000 board.

Automated calibration with this mount is trivial. It's almost always 100% user error on the failed image link front. Been there, done that. Default image link parameters really do work.

The User Guide is better than ever. Compare it to the rather spartan ME user guide which was in service for 12 years and the even more spartan GT-1100S user guide. Paramount mounts and sophisticated technically inclined Paramount mount users have been around for many years.

My own take on the MX is that the real problems with the MX have been with the new three way switch design, with a handful of people getting bad worms and with not including CCDSoft with the mount (for PEC training).

I would not let any of that stop me from purchasing an MX or an ME II.

[cventer]

Cant say I agree with this statement. It should be trivial but for some reason is not. I like to think of myself as heaving reasonable intelligence and and pretty handy with most software. I could not generate a PEC curve from CCDsoft and load it into MX using TCS as described in manual. No matter what I did it would have no effect or make things worse. Tried east west checkbox, camera orientations etc... all combos but nothing had any impact.

First time out with Pempro i was able to collect data and generate a PEC curve that I then manually loaded using TCS using cut and paste option. this worked perfectly and put me PE down to about +/- 1 arc sec.

I tried different daily builds etc.. and had no success. Still cant figure out what cause was. My guess is some kind of Southern Hemisphere glitch but just a hunch....I have not pursued getting it to work as its now working with the Pempro curve. Maybe some defects has been sorted now in Sky X TCS.



Sometimes yes. But for very large CCD chips you do need to often play around with the Tools->Preferences->Advanced. "Bad pointing sample criteria (degrees):" entry

This needs to be raised to get plate solves to work sometimes. Especially on non fixed mirror setups when you cross the meridian and mirror shifts slightly.


I am in agreement however that for the money its a great mount. Any issues you have will be sorted. the fact that the new PME II has similar design and same control system is a plus as it means even more users will play with this and help iron out any niggling defects....

[Logieberra]

Haha, Chris, I found the exact opposite with PEC! Couldn't get Pempro2 working and now find CCDSoft a breeze to use instead - with local help from Phil of course. I'll send you a PM with my Pempro2 steps if that's alright. I might have overlooked something simple... Ray G's Pempro2 sure has a very simple and attractive user interface... I hope for something similar from SB within TSX all in good time...

[CDKPhil]

I think there is a vital piece of info missing in the user guide in regards to a preference setting in CCD Soft, where it needs to have Sky X selected so it reads the index information.

If you load a curve without the index info the resulting PEC will be out of sync.

[gregbradley]

What gets a lot of people is the sometimes slow turnaround on the support forum. Time differences between Colorado and Australia are no fun either. Some support forum posts can sometimes fall between the cracks, particularly the over the weekend posts. The Bisques also take off for shows like the recent PATS, leaving no one responding to forum posts while they're gone. In my observation, the best time to post for immediate response is during the work week Tuesday to Thursday between 7 AM and noon Colorado time.

When posting to the forum, if you want quick response, it helps to have the problem well documented with your very first post. Try to anticipate questions and have answers. Otherwise the back and forth is going to be frustrating. The forum has an option to notify you via email when a reply is posted. I recommend using that feature.

Thanks for the tips on that.


Polar alignment with this mount is trivial. Though you can go overboard and spend several full nights on it if you're into that sort of thing. No doubt well worth doing if you have a permanent pier.


The intial polar alignment step is easy for sure. Creating a t-point model especially an automated one is far from trivial. Its fast if everything works and set up. I use my PME and t-point and had everything working and have done t-point models a few times on that. Despite that experience I could not get the Sky X T-point automated working despite several tries. I restudied the manual carefully (its spread over 2 manuals, the Sky X, the T-point add on manual) and realised I had an additional setup to do on the FOV indicator. I did that and was able to do plate solves at home on saved images. Despite all that working it failed again in the field. This is using a FLI Proline 16803 camera. After 2 hours of trying this and that I was mainly getting index error out of range error 731 (no reference in the manuals as to what that means). I fiddled with it more and perhaps even accidentally it worked - Yippee! I did a 20 point model, adjusted the polar alignment, did another 20 point model
the filter wheel at times went close to hitting the pier so I widened the hole in the targets more. Got another model, did the polar alignment adjustment and was getting messages saying RA needed no more adjustment. Tried to start a larger model, the filter wheel was on course to hit the pier, stopped it. Now it wouldn't work again. Checked all the slewing limits to make sure it wouldn't hit the pier. It seemed to not want to do larger models so there seemed to be a conflict with limits.
Tried a smaller one, finally got it going again and then it failed after a while because of lack of disk space (images must be saved before it will do a plate solve - another hidden catch not documented in the manual - you need to have the autosave checked in the camera window).
Cleaned the memory using a turbo disk cleaner - mistake, it erased where the serial numbers must be kept. Had to reenter the serial numbers and got it all going again, had to reset the parameters. Finally got it all going then the motor stalls presumably from the cam adjustment. Time elapsed- approx 4.5 hours in 7C temperatures.
Oh I swtiched cameras in that period also to the ML8300 to make it easier for the software (although I have used PL16803 and t-point with my PME). The camera window where you can change binning etc was clicked off at some point and its unclear where to reactivate it. The camera tab that comes up if you do this is a different one that does not have the ability to change binning. Apparently there are 2 camera tabs not one - very confusing and hard to find in the software. I am not a fan of these side windows that you can click off like in Lightroom, Nikon NX2 and also PixInsight. Its a bad style of interface.

But I did get it to work and I think I can get it to work again but as you can see it is not always easy, that there are windows and settings you need to access that are not either written up in the manual or are not user friendly and require an intimate knowledge of the software. So no its not what I would call trivial in my experience and I am an experienced user of automated t-point.



Training the PEC with this mount is trivial. Takes 30 minutes if you do it right. 15 additional minutes (for a final verification run) if you guessed wrong on the East/West check box. Although one guy can't seem to get his PEC to save to the mount, he probably just needs a new MKS-5000 board.

No, mine does not save PEC properly either. I have downloaded the latest daily build so I need to see if that corrects this issue or not.

Automated calibration with this mount is trivial. It's almost always 100% user error on the failed image link front. Been there, done that. Default image link parameters really do work.

Only with your camera setup. Not in all cases. It does not seem to like large chips. You need to have the autosave in the camera window checked, you need to setup the FOV indicators in the Sky X (wasn'tt required in Sky 6 and T-point). The arc sec/pixel value appears to be done differently to the Sky 6 and t-point (there it wants the 1x1 value even if you are shooting in 2x2 or 3x3, Sky X appears to want the value based on the binning you are shooting - I may still not have that right though!).

I think you are right though, if you can do an image link you are 50% there but not 100%. I was able to do image links but not automated callibration runs as per above. So that has not been my experience.

The User Guide is better than ever. Compare it to the rather spartan ME user guide which was in service for 12 years and the even more spartan GT-1100S user guide. Paramount mounts and sophisticated technically inclined Paramount mount users have been around for many years.

The PMX manual is a superbly written document and I have to acknowledge it is one of the best technical manuals I have ever seen. However it is not complete and you will still need access to fine details when things go wrong that are not in the manual. I have had need of at least 2 important things that are not in the manual. Same with the PDF instructions to adjust the slipping cam - it is not complete. I did it exactly per their pdf and it made no difference. I worked it out for myself judging by their drawings (which are also inaccurate). The 2 adjustment screws either side of the cam tightening screw were set way off what they should be and it took a lot of trial and error to get the right setting which is 2-2.5 turns back from tight. Too far back from tight and you will continue to get slipping gears no matter how many times you adjust your cam. That's not written anywhere.

My own take on the MX is that the real problems with the MX have been with the new three way switch design, with a handful of people getting bad worms and with not including CCDSoft with the mount (for PEC training).

Yes this is pretty true but PEC is also bugged or was bugged. I need to do that again next as I did exactly per the manual and it failed. Like Chris's experience it either made no difference or slightly worsened tracking. It also produced a weird looking staircased curve and it also did not save it properly. I have to click retrieve everytime to recover it which is a waste anyway as it does not work. I have the latest build now so hopefully it will work next time. But I am prepared that it may not. I have Precision PEC so I'll use that if SkyX fails again.

I would not let any of that stop me from purchasing an MX or an ME II.[/QUOTE]

That's up to the buyers tolerance for the possibility of expensive items not working out of the box, but be prepared for the possibility of the above and potential fiddling with it factor.

I still think once the wrinkles are ironed out and with some tolerance it will be an awesome mount. I think my worm is good except for a recent sudden spike in PE which made all images a writeoff with double stars where it was quite good (not perfect but then I hadn't done a full t-point yet as it failed on the 3 or 4 attempts to get it to work).

The good thing about SB is it does have a lot of depth of sophistication but with that extra comes the likelihood of bugs and doing things wrongly or more prone to failure and less reliable.Look how long its taken Windows to sort out some bugs and they have many billions of dollars to spend.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

Another problem with the MX has been that it's clear SB never tested it in the Southern Hemisphere. That's assuming they even have a test suite. They probably don't have a dedicated software QA person. Their development methodology is rather suspect to me. As with many small companies, I don't think they actually follow a formalized software development methodology.

For image link? Huh? What are you smoking there?

That's the pointing sample criterion advanced setting that was alluded to previously. It needs to be increased, especially if you have a scope with a low focal length or a camera with a large chip. The default pointing sample criterion appears to cater to those of us with long focal length instruments and small chips.

Correct, TheSkyX image link wants to know your guesstimate of the actual image scale, not the 1x1 binning image scale, the actual image scale. Entering 0 and letting image link figure it out is often better than guessing. I don't remember TheSky6 being any different, but it's been many years since I used TheSky6 on a regular basis.

Huh? It's clear as day: Display->Camera

Second camera tab? Hmm. Maybe you're referring to the automated calibration settings and the fact that although you can set the exposure there, you can't set binning there. It uses the binning as set in the camera tab and if the camera tab is not being displayed, then you'll not know what binning you've set there. Yes, that is confusing. They should let us set the binning in the automated calibration settings. Please do me a favor and suggest this as an enhancement. It's already been suggested, but continues to fall on some apparently deaf ears over at SB! (Just wait until you realize that other settings, such as which filter you're using, are also set only in the camera tab. Good idea to have the camera tab displayed.)

When you find an area of the manual that has incomplete information, doesn't have information that you think it should or could include information you think would be helpful, document the additional information in detail and post it as documentation errata for Daniel Bisque to add to the manual. Post it publicly on one of the SB support forums so that all may benefit (via search if not directly). If everyone would do this, then the manual would get better very quickly and the newbie frustration level would decrease (for those that actually read the manuals).

I'm starting to get the impression that a contributing factor to your MX frustrations is your TheSkyX learning curve frustration. Those are two different things that should not be confused.

[cventer]

Thanks Phil definately no my problem. Log files showed index position being read without issue.

[Logieberra]

Re SB quality control and worm tests in house, for ME anyways:

http://www.bisque.com/tom/PEC/pec.asp

"Great pains are put into both cutting the gears and worms (done in-house) and then accurately mounting them!

NOTE! ALL Paramount MEs' are run-in BEFORE shipping and the periodic error is measured in-house! The Paramount ME is guaranteed to have 5 +-2 arcseconds or less of periodic error BEFORE training the error. After the correction one can expect 1 arc second of error or less when using PrecisionPEC to train the error."

[el_draco]

Interesting thread this. My MX arrived a couple of days ago and I finally got a chance to take a look see last night. The step up from a G11 is significant, that much is for sure, and my only comment at this point in time is that there is always going to be a learning curve with a mount like this. It takes time and patience.... and I am taking notes!

[frolinmod]

That was true for the ME. Mine came with three arc seconds peak to peak (+- 1.5) out of the box which I thought was truly phenomenal. How did they do that? Training the PEC made it go sub arc second as claimed.

Did you see how they're only claiming 7 arc seconds PE and 30 arc seconds all sky pointing with Tpoint and Super Model on the ME II? They're not going out on a limb and making any bold claims.

[gregbradley]

Not really. I have no trouble reading and applying the manual. I do have trouble when the manual does not contain everything you need to know to achieve success. Also the slipping gears is nothing to do with my understanding of the software. The PEC curve not loading is early days as I have only tried once (again exactly per the manual). I see on the SB support site others have had trouble with this. There was an update on Sky X that implied this was corrected. I now have that so hopefully that is all. My CCDSoft preferences have Sky X pro checked as I saw this mentioned on SB site earlier and I think you mentioned it in earlier posts, so that is not it.

Thanks for your post as you could easily bring up something I have missed.

Cheers,

Greg

[Logieberra]

Greg, now THIS is good service huh?

"I don't know how or what files need to be attached, but if you have a spike in your PE then there is most likely something in your worm block that is out of spec, which is why we sent you a new worm block and would like you to replace it. A post of your PE will help us, see this spike that you are seeing and help us further diagnose what is happening.

~*Sarah"

[gregbradley]

Yes that is good. Who are they referring to?

It seems there must have been a batch of worms that weren't so good.
I guess if a large company like Nikon can mess up (a lot of D800s had faulty autofocus) then we should apply the same standards to a smaller company.

Greg.

Greg.

[Logieberra]

Haha, happy birthday, one is on its way to you! See your SB forum thread to confirm :)

[Logieberra]

http://www.bisque.com/sc/forums/t/16366.aspx?PageIndex=2

[gregbradley]

Oh great. Well, I take it all back, that is great service.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

I got my new worm block yesterday morning. I installed and tested its performance last night.

It came well within spec at around 3 arc seconds peak to peak +- 1.5". I can't ask for much better than that.

I am very pleased with this result.:D

Great service from Software Bisque!


Cheers

[gregbradley]

It sounds like they've improved the QC on the worm manufacturing line.

My worm when I measured it (assuming I measured it right as I had trouble loading the PEC curve) was more like 6 arc secs. But it developed a spike which may have been the result of the infamous slipping gears/cam issue.

Greg.

[PRejto]

I am/was a beginner so I can comment, for what it's worth, on my PMX experience. I had never even used a CCD camera before, though I had done a fair amount of planetary photography using a HEQ pro and a 4" refractor. I have to say I was completely overwhelmed by everything and it has taken months and months and months (not helped at all by poor weather, travel, observatory rebuilding, etc) to get where I am now. And I'm still not there! I'm much closer though!

Ernie is perhaps correct in saying that issues with TSX should be separated from issues with the MX, but unless one is experienced with the software, and experienced with automated type of mounts, the distinction is academic given that one cannot operate the MX without TSX!

I have now had the mount for I guess something over a year(?). My issues were compounded by having a camera that hated CCDSoft and barely worked with TSX, but just weeks ago those issues are finally solved thanks to great work from Evan Warkentine (he does the ascom stuff for SB). I can do fully automated T-Point runs and currently have a model of 187 points where PA looks quite good, but pointing isn't quite as good as I have seen. 4 min unguided shots do not look good at all, with or without protrack turned on. So, I wonder if I might be having trouble with PE and the worm block as others have written here - but I'm not nearly experienced enough to know if it might be something about my super model that is causing the issue and not PE. Anyway, I intend to do PE ASAP now that I have a camera that works.


Sorry, Greg, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I know a lot of MX users are reading and might chime in. Many thanks.

Peter

[bert]

Interesting thread.... Astrophysics vs software bisque was touched on earlier, I might tak on my take on this, hope you don't mind Greg.

I might be able to provide a unique perspective in the fact that I use a pme with sky x, and in my other observatory houses an astrophysics Mach 1 and I use the sky 6 to drive it. I have also done a preliminary setup on an observatory with a pmx, I did a basic setup to determine that I had got the pier dimensions right on an pier I had just constructed. Compared to the pme I really liked the switches for the worm engagement, they seemed to work really well on this particular mount. The one thing I really did miss from the pmx in the extremely fine pier levelling system that the pme utilises.

Both my observatories are completely automated. I set targets, go to bed, and wake up with data.

I don't use pec on the pme....less than 2 arc seconds of uncorrected pe is fine by me. I use autoguiding so I figure what's the point losing time doing pec training? Doing some testing I have shot 1 minute exposures at 2200 fl that are perfect.

The astrophysics mount also does 1 minute unguided at 2200fl with 35 kilos of telescope, it has pec enabled at the factory. I haven't played around with it at all. (ain't broke,don't fix it)

On the whole skyx vs sky6 thing, I have found a few times when the pme will not respond in sky x, that some times I can 'rescue'with the sky 6 where it will not even respond to sky x. I use the sky 6 in one observatory due to the amount of processing power required by the sky x's graphics.

I do find the astrophysics control system to be far more user friendly and much, much more flexible than the sb offerings, the main thing the software bisque has over the astrophysics is the home sensor, which for remote observatories is very desirable.

My 2c

[lhansen]

I agree with Brett, this has been a very interesting read.

There have obviously been some not so good experiences for some of the people buying the SB PMX. I guess the heart of the beef is that given the price being paid for the PMX, there was no expectation of some of the issues that have been raised. If you had paid 1500 for the same mount, there may have been more acceptance of the issues. Another problem I suspect is that we (amateur astronomers) have never had it so good, mounts, cameras, focusers and associated software are being delivered at levels of sophistication that 10-15 years ago we could only dream about. This also brings significant levels of complexity, a sentiment that has been echoed by a number of people.

SB have a solid reputation as leading the field, is the PMX perfect? probably not, but I can't imagine that SB won't learn from the problems that have been identified and will continue to improve their mount and software offerings. If you look at the history of AP, your will find a similar pattern.

I for one cant wait to see what's coming up around the corner. In the mean time, one of my greatest regrets was selling my SB PME, the third incarnation of the venerable 1100 GT mount. What a mount, what a great experience to have owned such a superb piece of gear.

Let's keep all of these things in perspective. Many of us love fiddling with our gear, SB have increased our opportunity to do so, even if only for a short period of time.

:thanx:

[DavidTrap]

Bert - are you seriously running 35kg on a Mach 1?? How many counterweights are you using? I was worried if I were pushing the limits on mine running 21.5kg.

DT

[gregbradley]

Ernie is perhaps correct in saying that issues with TSX should be separated from issues with the MX, but unless one is experienced with the software, and experienced with automated type of mounts, the distinction is academic given that one cannot operate the MX without TSX!


Yes they are somewhat separate issues but as you say you cannot use PMX without using SkyX. PMX will not work with Sky 6.

I have now had the mount for I guess something over a year(?). My issues were compounded by having a camera that hated CCDSoft and barely worked with TSX, but just weeks ago those issues are finally solved thanks to great work from Evan Warkentine (he does the ascom stuff for SB). I can do fully automated T-Point runs and currently have a model of 187 points where PA looks quite good, but pointing isn't quite as good as I have seen. 4 min unguided shots do not look good at all, with or without protrack turned on. So, I wonder if I might be having trouble with PE and the worm block as others have written here - but I'm not nearly experienced enough to know if it might be something about my super model that is causing the issue and not PE. Anyway, I intend to do PE ASAP now that I have a camera that works.

Your Tpoint model seems perfect. You need to graph your autoguider.log file that is in the CCDsoft directory. That way you can quantify your PEC errors. Or do a PEC and it will show a graph of the errors as well. I forget the promoted spec - something like 6 or 7 arc secs. The worms seem to be a critical component and a number needed their worm replaced. I can only assume it was a QC manufacturing issue and SB have tightened/corrected this since and are getting better worms now. 4 minutes unguided on a TEC140? I am not sure that is an accurate test.
187 points is a lot but I think if you check the manual it suggests a larger model than that for ProTrack corrections.


Sorry, Greg, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I know a lot of MX users are reading and might chime in. Many thanks.

You are right on the subject.

Greg.

Peter[/QUOTE]

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the comparison Brett. I have never used an AP mount but I am a huge fan of anything Roland Christen makes. He's a genius and a perfectionist and also an imager so its a no risk buy getting his gear.
My AP140 scope is perfection.

Yes the little levelling knobs of the PME are a nice touch and perhaps not worth much and would have been nice on the PMX although PMX has bit in level that PME does not.

I find PEC turns almost round stars into round stars on my PME so its worth the extra work to install it. Its not really that time consuming (well, if it all goes well that is!).

Mind you I would be one of those who would be willing to pay a few hundred bucks more if the PMX or PME came preloaded with PEC like AP mounts do. Also it means the manufacturer can setup the PEC perfectly rather than perhaps some small compromises out in the field.

Greg.

[Logieberra]

For any potential MX owners out there, I encourage you to read the publically available Sky & Telescope Magazine's in-depth review of the MX, available here:

http://skyandtelescope.com/reprint/555

A nice little freebie.

[Mighty_oz]

I'll ask a Q here, has anyone got long unguided images with the PMX yet ? Longer then say 3 or 4 min at anything greater than 500mmFL ?
Reason i ask is that mine does not do more than 1 min with or without PEC and Protrack ( with a 400+ T-point model ), so all i do is guide :( Was looking forward to imaging without guiding. Thnis is with an FSQ106 attatched by rings directly to the mount with even a small DSI 2 instead of the usual st8300 i use.
Marcus.

[cventer]

I read that. It's a very nice review that's for sure. I think a little too rosy to be honest. Guess the reviewer got lucky and did not have any of the issues some of us here experienced. Don' t get me wrong I love my PMX and would buy the new pme ii in a heartbeat if I needed that much capacity.

[Logieberra]

Geeze, talk about a tough crowd!

Clearly none of you guys were early adopters of Losmandy's Gemini 2... I left that camp after a year, about a month too soon I think, PEC got sorted soon after I heard :(

My point, have a little faith in SB and be patient...

[bert]

I put the RC on as the mach 1 for testing in my home observatory, it makes optical/system testing easier. After testing, It was transferred to the remote obs, and mounted on the PME. The mach 1 was not stressed with that weight.

The Mach 1 has the ap130 and FSQ combo back on now.

Greg: The PME in my obs has a levelling bubble, and I'm pretty sure it is OEM.

Brett

[Logieberra]

Marcus, for these sorts of Qs you really need to post directly to the SB Forum. Be sure to include as much data and screen shots as possible. Like most specialist astro gear these days (AP, Tak, Planewave, Losmandy), the dedicated support forum should be your first port of call. Actually, good of SB to even provide their own forum, the other big players bum off the YahooGroups system which I'm not a fan of.

Briefly, I did a series of 5min exposures a few weeks back with the MX, unguided, similar FL to your FSQ with Sky90 - Protrack on - and the result was ok in my opinion, though not worthy of posting to this site's DeepSky section. Will attach soon. Good luck with it. Logan.

[Logieberra]

Unguided with a small T-Point model of about 50pts from memory. I've head that Protrack responds far better with more points...

[Mighty_oz]

Thanks Logan, that's is better than my 2min unguided with the 400 T-point model, i'll take your advice and get some pics etc and ask the hard Q's :)
I do love the mount by the way as well hehe.

[DavidTrap]

omg!!

Dt

[niharika]

Generally speaking my understanding is pec smooths out over time specially when the worm is new. So sooner or later one have to redo it. Our ap initially had 3+ arc/sec pec which is <3 after a year of moderate use. This is not to say ore loaded pec is not useful.

[gregbradley]

Ah yes. I noticed that with the Tak NJP I had. It got better with age, smoother, less PE. It had good PE to start with but excellent after a few years.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Greg: The PME in my obs has a levelling bubble, and I'm pretty sure it is OEM.

Brett[/QUOTE]

I am not sure about the history of PMEs but the levelling bubble is an accessory sold by Rob Miller. Mine did not have one.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

It's also an accessory sold by Software Bisque. I have two of them on my PME. One on each side. They each read a little differently!

[CDKPhil]

Here is a image of the Horse Head Nebula taken on my MX, with it's new worm block.

This is a 10 minute unguided exposure, with Pro Track on. The PEC has not been programmed this is why there is a small amount of movement in RA.

The image scale is .6 arc seconds per pixel.

Camera SBIG STi mono.

OTA Planewave CDK12.5

Mac OS

I measured the PE of the new worm and it is around 3 arc seconds peak to peak. I will need some clear stable sky to correct it effectively.

I am thrilled with this result.

The MX is an awesome mount.

Cheers

[Mighty_oz]

That sure is a great result u got there, that's what i was hoping for, glad u can get it :) How many points in the t-point model and did u do whole sky or just one side ?

Marcus.

[Logieberra]

A+, go the MX!

[CDKPhil]

Hi Marcus, how are you?

I am very happy with this result. Blown away actually, a focal length of 2541mm and no PEC training I can't ask for much better than that.:D

I only did 140 points to create the T Point model.

I used both sides of the meridian. I selected targets all the way around my visual horizon then worked my way up to the zenith. I used Image Link to add the pointing samples.

Once I have finished testing I will do an automated run with 500 points or more. This will give Pro Track more to work with. Having such a low PE I will need a very stable atmosphere to train PEC other wise I will be recording the seeing and it won't improve.

You should be able to achieve the same result. Feel free to send me a PM with any questions you have, or if you are having trouble post on the SB forum, there are some very knowledgeable members and SB staff willing to help.


Cheers

[2stroke]

Dam you have some fun toys to play with lol :)

[gregbradley]

I thought I would add an update.

The worm that was being sent to me did not arrive.
I did not receive any direct communication from SB despite my details not having changed when I bought the mount (they received the money no worries).
I have to be prompted that someone left a message on their website blogs. They are asking for confirmation of my delivery address so UPS can deliver. They never sent me a tracking number which is the first thing anyone does when sending you something.

I sent an email plus a fax detailing all my addresses and email addresses etc.

None of this is acknowledged by anyone there.

I receive a question did Colleen from SB front desk (whatever that means) email me?

No I did not. Front desk apparently refers to their physical reception as I thought maybe its some obsecure reference to a spot in their complex website.

I called them twice now during business hours and noone answers. It says leave a message in general mailbox and then it says the mailbox is not open and to leave a message. I left a message and that is where its at.

Do you see a pattern here? Is it clearer why there are issues with the mount now?

Greg.

[Mighty_oz]

That sounds very bad :( Hopefully it's due to the fact that they are working fulltime on getting mounts out or ....
But still after all that and no response makes u wonder.

[DavidNg]

I agree with Greg, SB responses to their clients are suboptimal, many questions directly related to their products at their website or emails (my experience) are unanswered or answered halfheartedly, more often by some nice enough users. I also feel their southern hemisphere buyers are neglected in their software development,testing and post sell services.

[allan gould]

Exactly the same re their dome software. Totally ignored until I went online in a public forum and detailed their total lack of service and after sales care. Then they stepped up to the plate but only half heatedly. Ask Houghy about Automadome - he just loves it (NOT).

[Logieberra]

Greg, do us all a favour, go ahead and list your MX mount on the classifieds and be done with it.

My replacement worm block arrived last week, express shipping from the US. Superb service. Period.

[gregbradley]

Unfortunately southern hemisphere customers must only account for a fraction of the market so there does tend to be a bias against us from most manufacturers.



Sometimes putting a bit of pressure on helps as long as its not too much.



I guess I am sounding like a whinger there, point taken and I was thinking of that before posting but on the other hand this forum is designed to be open and honest so those who are making decisions about gear get honest and truthful info that could influence their decision and hopefully end up with the best choice. I am sure SB will come through for me and I will announce that as well but I am sure there are plenty who appreciate the honest feedback which is often hard to find except the hard way! Knowing your support was excellent is part of that feedback. The fact you needed a new worm on a brand new mount is also part of the info.

Greg.

[Logieberra]

Greg, what surprises me is that our personal experiences with SB are such polar opposites. Let's just agree to disagree. A truce? :rolleyes:

"The fact you needed a new worm on a brand new mount is also part of the info". I'm happy to add to that info.

I was fortunate to purchase a lovely and lightly used MX from IIS member Pmrid. I understand that he received the mount around August 2011, being one of the first to hit Australian shores (MX mount no. 6). The mount is now 14 months old so she's not new.

After measuring PE with both Pempro2 and CCDSoft my raw PE was high 6's to 7's - pushing the limits of the guaranteed 'maximum seven (7) arcsecond peak-to-peak periodic error before periodic error correction. When periodic error correction is applied, the resulting peak-to-peak periodic error should be approximately one (1) arcsecond or less'.

SB decided to replace my worm block, free of charge, and provided a few other replacement bits and pieces (pulleys, belts etc). They shipped the 3lbs of metal + goodies half way around the world via UPS expedited shipping - not cheap - and they also paid for the return shipping of the old block back to Colorado. Impressive. Pics attached.

The replacement worm block produces a raw PE of +1.7/-1.8 (3.5 peak to peak). Details attached. Suffice to say I'm very pleased. With PEC applied my tracking will be limited by seeing only. Happy days. :rofl:

[gregbradley]

That is good service. I am glad its working nicely. Its a nice mount when all is tuned up and mine will be great as well once these things are sorted.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

No good deed goes unpunished. :rolleyes:

[gregbradley]

The replacement worm arrived today. Its a beautifully machined piece of gear. It looks very promising.

Ooops, I realised SB had my old address from when I bought a Sky 6 years ago. I bought the PMX through OPT not direct from SB so I am part of the problem there not letting them know my newer address. They sent it to my old address.

I'll post the results once I change the worm over. My prediction is it will be very good.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

Great to hear Greg!

I look forward to seeing your results.

Cheers

[PRejto]

Maybe this is something others might be interested in. My MX has uncorrected PE of just slightly over +/- 1 arcsec! My mount was one of the first sent to Australia. Guess I just got pretty lucky!

Peter

[gregbradley]

What camera and scope were you using?
If you were using TEC140 and Moravian 8300 image scale is 1.14 pixels/arc sec and your PE is more like 3.6 arc secs which is like mine before it started spiking in one spot in the PE. Unless you were binned 2x2 but I am not sure about the Sky X but Precision PEC you only enter the 1x1 arc sec/pixel value.

That is still very good though.

Greg.

[PRejto]

Greg, I was binning at 2x2..... Yes, I will need to redo this at 1x1 to get a more precise curve for a correction, but I will need a very steady night!

[Logieberra]

Peter, I would use a 2x barlow if I was you. From memory, an image scale of around 1 is ideal.

Some useful info on PEC image scale from Ray Gralak, the Pempro guy:

What Image Scale is Best to use?

I am going to start out this section with something that I think we all learned early on with CCD Imaging and focusing. You cant focus at a 2x2 bin and then image at 1x1 binning. You can, although, focus at 1x1 binning and image at 2x2 binning. If you are going to image at 2x2 binning only, then you can focus at 2x2 binning. The rule is you must focus at the highest binning mode you plan on using.

I have found that PEMPro follows the same rule. Think of it as focusing the periodic error of your mount. If you only image at a 3.5 arc seconds per pixel for wide field work, then you can use that image scale to program your mount with PEMPro. But don't expect to throw on your 12 inch Meade at .55 arc second per pixel on your mount and still expect the same level of performance.

Use the smallest image scale you will use with your mount to program your mount. The better then sampling rate (i.e. smaller the image scale) the better PEMPro can analyze and correct your mount. Remember, ideal sampling is the seeing in your local area divided by 3.3. If your local seeing conditions averages 2.0 arc seconds, then you should aim for a image scale of ~.60 arc seconds per pixel. Anything more than that wont achieve much better performance.

Now, if you only image at 1.75 arc seconds per pixel, then use that to program your mount. I have programmed my mount with PEMPro at 3.5 arc seconds per pixel and it worked great with my wide field set-up. But when I measured my PE with a C9.25 SCT, I found the error to be to large for that image scale. So I re-programmed my mount with the C9.25 and decreased my PE error by 4X! Now the next time I do wide field imaging, my mount will be 'super-tuned' for the job, and that's just what we want.

[Logieberra]

The only reason why I suggest that, is that your IS of over 2.0 is similar to what I was using to acquire PEC data with Pempro. Here's what I wrote to Ray:

quote:

Also, my image scale is 2.715 is this a problem? Tak Sky90.

reply:

Yes, it could be with this mount. I would recommend using a 2x barlow to get a little more resolution.

[gregbradley]

Good post.

Very informative.

Focusing at 1x1 binning though can be a pain on many cameras that have slow downloads. I suppose you get it exact at higher binning and then switch to 1x1 for a small adjustment.

Greg.

[PRejto]

Logan, Many thanks for your post. That is really useful information clearly put.

I'm sure many of you know I'm just getting started with all these complexities. Just getting CCDSoft to work at all with my camera has been a huge hurdle overcome! Thus, I was pretty happy to get a repeatable result, even at 2x2 binning. I am now pretty curious about my results at 1x1 which will need to wait until better weather returns.

My unbinned image scale with my G2-8300 camera is 1.14 arsec/pixel. This seems pretty close to the ideal of "1." Hopefully that will be good enough.....getting a barlow into this system would be a giant pain!

Peter

[PRejto]

My uncorrected PE binning 1x1, 26 min data. Image scale 1.14 arcsec/pixel.

I get a better result in correction by not selecting west, but I'm not very happy with what I'm seeing. Is it realistic to think the mount could correct this better? It's smoother but the excursions seem nearly as large as the original measurement, and there are so many small peaks and troughs due to the pinion.

[gregbradley]

You need to click that last step - periodic curve for PMX to generate a proper PEC. That's just the data being fitted to the graph scale. Next step is the curve that is used for sending corrections. It should look like a gentle sine wave. With Precision PEC and PEMPRO it gives you several choices for the type of algorithm used to generate the final curve. Not sure Sky X does that. Probably uses the best/usual one by default.

You need to click on pointing west or not based on where the scope was pointing when you recorded the data. Have it back to front and the resulting curve pulls when it should push.

If your PEC worsens your tracking you have it in reverse most likely. So you would change that pointing west button.

Greg

[frolinmod]

Be sure to click clear before opening the tracking log file otherwise you'll end up with a mess.

You of course do need to click on the Periodic error curve for Bisque TCS box before saving to the mount.

Save each tracking log to a different file name so that you can try switching east/west to see which reduces vs. which doubles your PE.

Note that the graph labels can be misleading. They're not labeling the peak values.

[PRejto]

Greg and Ernie,
Thanks both for your input!

Greg, I did generate a curve from the PE data I put up in the first photo, and yes it does look like a gentle sine wave as you describe, though perhaps not so gentle due to the pinion gear error. I did save it to the mount first with "west" selected (which made things 2x as worse, then with "west" unselected. That is the 2nd curve I posted. I don't think it is too swift.

Ernie, yes I have clicked "clear" though in one of the photos you can still see the raw tracking data in the background.

Reading what you wrote though perhaps I've made a mistake. What I did is simply collect tracking data with CCDSoft. After I generated the curve I selected the west box, or unselected it. This just appears to invert the curve. I saved each of these versions in turn to the mount and measured the improvement, or lack of improvement by collecting new data using CCDSoft. I saved each of these new curves with a different name so that I could compare afterwards, though it was immediately obvious that one was far worse. It's just that one is not seemingly far better! Have I messed up something?

I'm thinking that perhaps I should use my ST-i camera together with a 2x barlow which might get me in the neighborhood of .8 arcsec/pixel. But maybe I'm chasing something that can't be corrected in this manner, namely the pinion; those changes seem so relentless and fast. I don't know enough about this to know. Whilst my uncorrected PE seems really good it seems chuck full of peaks and valleys. I have not seen enough other curves to know if this is very different from other MX mounts.

[CDKPhil]

Peter, your PE looks to be very small, similar to mine. I think seeing is going to make it hard to train your PEC. I am not sure what your average seeing is where you are? Mine here is around 2 to 3 arc seconds at the moment. This is about the same as the PE.

I am thinking of taking my setup some where with a more stable sky to train the PEC. I am imaging at 2541mm so the smother the atmosphere the better.

Have you seen the new version of Sky X 10.2? It has a lot more camera function, you should be able to train your PEC within Sky X without having to use CCDSoft.

Cheers

[gregbradley]

I am hoping that the latest build now works for PEC. My PEC curve is sine wave but very stepped. It did not look like that when I generated it but after uploading to PMX and bringing it back later it looked different like it got altered in that process. It also does not improve tracking or worsen it. It doesn't seem to do anything.

I have installed the latest build and perhaps this has been taken care of. I can post my curve once I redo it in a week and a bit.

There's always Pempro or Precision PEC.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

"TheSkyX->Telescope->Tools->Bisque TCS->Periodic Error Correction->Compute PEC Curve" pretty much is Precision PEC.

[gregbradley]

Yes I imagine that its the guts of Precision PEC. But it may be handy having an external piece of software that does that in case there are still bugs in Sky X PEC.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

I got a replacement worm sent for free bySoftware Bisque several weeks ago. I haven't been able to get to the mount due to work.

I did last night and successfully changed the worm and readjusted the cam thanks to the helpful video from Chris Venter.

I did a 10 minute image and got elongated stars, quite badly elongated too. It was windy and that was not helping for sure but the elongations were from tracking/PE issues not the wind as I strategically position the slide off flat roof to minimise wind and I was using my AP140 which is not partcularly wind prone.

I also did several automated t-point runs and that is now working quite reliably (I got on top of that last trip and it remains working - yeah!).

I adjusted the polar alignment until I got a perfect report from t-point. Odd behaviour occassionally with t-point. It can be slightly erratic.
I did a 24 point run and it told me to raise the altitude by 8.8 ticks. I did that. I ran it again and did a 48 point model and it told me to lower it by 8.5 ticks! I did. I ran about another 44 point model and it said it was perfect.

I also did a new PEC curve and the resulting curve did not seem to affect guiding.

I did another PEC using 2x2 binning instead of 3x3 binning. It gave a better curve and one that looked more like the one on my PME that works so well. Its more subtle and only small sections above and below the middle line rather than large.

So I conclude from this that 2x2 binning is way more accurate than 3x3 is on a 1050mm focal length refractor. Also seeing was not great due to the wind. I wonder if I should try one at 1x1 binning to get even higher resolution.

So now I have a new PEC and perfectly polar aligned it was time for the acid test - more exposure runs.

Oops, more elongated stars and very very odd autoguiding where the guide star oscillated between 2 points back and forth and I was getting 2.39 pixel errors in guiding which is massive (I want below about .3).

I immediately thought this must be some sort of backlash issue. Perhaps I did not tension the drive belt correctly but I thought it was done the same as Chris did on his video.

I slide the counterweight further down the shaft to put more weight bias (the RA shaft was nearly horizontal and I wondered if it was too balanced). I also recallibrated the autoguider just in case something was way off there.

I also went for much longer guide exposures and reduced the aggressiveness down a lot (to 3). Bingo - guide errors routinely low - between 0.00 and .4 mostly.

I also slid the dewshield down from full extension to keep it out of the wind stream. That helped a bit.

5 minute subs were now showing perfect guiding. I was using a MMOAG and an SBIG STi guider. Woohoo!

I think the PE was so low that the autoguider was causing its own oscillations and I needed to turn the guider way down. I may need to turn it down even further as the polar alignment is very very spot on.

No sign of a spike in PE (there was a bit of black rubbery thread on the belt, I wonder if that was part of the spike I was getting, the worm did not appear to be damaged in any way although perhaps scratches may only need to be tiny to affect guiding and grease hides some of that).

So it looks like I have a working PMX and most likely a working PEC curve (to be verified tonight).

Next step is a 300 point t-point model with Protrack corrections as well as PEC corrections and 15 minute subs. That's tonight if its clear enough.

Gee, I even did some imaging for once!

Perhaps I could even whack a 12 inch OOAG on this baby now or a CDK 12.5 inch (probably not, too wind prone but OOAG only has half the tube sticking up in the air).


Greg

[Mighty_oz]

Glad to hear that u seem to have it all under control :) Can u do a test for me as i've been having trouble with trying to get 5 min unguided round stars with my fsq and try it without guiding at all :) These mounts are supposed to do that for 2000mm FL's.
From what i've read 1x1 bin for pec is the best, yet to do that myself, Perth's weather's not been the best.
Also do u have a pic of your setup ? Any leads off the end of the scope from the camera etc or did u route them thru the mount ?

Thanks Greg

[DavidNg]

Congratulation Greg. Whats you have achieved in one night most probably took us many weeks and pulled half of our hair out.

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll do another one at 1x1 and save both log files so I can revert if it worsens things. I think also per the manual a night of good seeing is really required. 1x1 versus 2x2 probably needs excellent seeing to get that advantage but you may as well max it out anyway.

I don't use through the mount cabling. I do use the PMX usb and power port on the dovetail though. Very handy.

Per the manual you need to use ProTrack for long unguided round star images. I was just reading through the ProTrack info as I plan to do that tonight. 50 -200 point model is required first and super model used.

You need perfect polar alignment as well so you'll need to do several t-point automated runs anyway to get to that point. What threw me off last night I think was the fact my polar alignment was more perfect than I am used to and perhaps this new worm is considerably more accurate than the old one. So autoguiding, especially with ProTrack enabled may only need to be the occassional minor correction once every 15 seconds or longer. I have to trial and error to get the best exposure length and aggressiveness setting.

I'll let you know how I go with ProTrack to see if I can get 10 minute pinpoint star images with no autoguiding. I'll give that a go tonight now everything seems to be working.

So your ideal PMX setup is a very stable platform, levelled off, T-point model done and Polar alignment tweaked until you get the report
no further corrections needed. 200 point t-point model with Protrack enabled. A PEC curve done exactly per the instructions and on a night of good seeing, an offaxis style gudiing setup to prevent flexure, a sensitive and clean autoguiding camera. Scope protected from wind.



Its been a while really delayed mostly by the fact I haven't been able to use it much for a while due to work.

When it all works its an impressive engineering /software meld which is why I got it in the first place. I guess its well known that early adopters of new technology often have problems. Nikon seems to be having trouble that way recently with quality issues with some of their high end cameras.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

Always doing at least 42 sample Tpoint runs and Supermodel helps with the polar alignment consistency. Supermodel uses different algorithms with fewer points. 42 or so is where it appears to change to a better more consistent algorithm. Either that or I'm deluded.

A windy night is never a good night to test anything. Been there, been frustrated.

[CDKPhil]

Great to hear Greg!
With a good model I don't think you will have much trouble going 10 min unguided with the focal length you are using.

I measured and programed my PEC a couple of nights ago, and my uncorrected PE was around 2.8", after the correction it went down to 1.4". The seeing here has not been very good. I think with better seeing I should be able to get sub arc second tracking.

Here is a shot from the other night. This is 15min unguided, focal length of 2541mm, .6 arc seconds pixel, PEC and ProTrack on.

This is not perfect but maybe with a better model it might be possible to get round stars. 15 minutes unguided is pushing things to the limit at this focal length.

Cheers

Phil

[gregbradley]

That's good to know. Thanks for that. Also I had the hand controller plugged in for most of it and then I detached it. I noticed the raw data showed a big drop perhaps after I unplugged the hand controller so that step of unplugging the hand controller may be important. I thought it would only affect results if you accidentally used it.

Windy night is not good - true.



That's impressive Phil. It looks like you are almost there.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

I noticed on the 2nd night with the new worm if my mount is well balanced I am getting oscillating autoguiding errors. If I slide the counterweight down a bit more it turns off and goes accurate. But if I slide it down too much it can stall the slews. I turned down the slew rate.

Do you think I may not have gotten the correct tension on the belt that drives the worm?

It did not oscillate before when in close balance. I mean its not too big of a deal as I can simply keep some weight on the balance to the west which is a common advice but this is belt drive not gear drive.?

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

It is possible that your belt is not tight enough. I read on the SB forum that you could not over tighten the belt. It was Steve or Daniel Bisque that said this.

I would be reluctant to put a lot of pressure on the belt, but when you push in on one side the other side should not move.

I don't know if this would cause the oscillation but it would be worth trying.
Keep in mind this may alter your PEC and TPoint Model.

I have only done some quick tests with the guide function on Sky X, but I have found at my image scale, I had better results unguided.

I did a log and found there was an oscillation also, +- 2 arc seconds. I put this down to the settings. I haven't had a chance to explore this further.

Cheers.

[Mighty_oz]

I'm pretty sure they suggest No hand controller connected when doing t-point, pec, etc

[gregbradley]

Thanks, that is very helpful. So perhaps I can tighten it more. I used the Chris Venter video and Daniel commented it had sage advice about the belt tightening and Chris demonstrated that the belt should not bow when reversed which I checked for but my tension may have been a taf more than he seemed to go for. It was approx the same tension as when I removed the casing on the original worm.
2 arc sec error in guiding is massive.

With a bit of weight on the counterbalance I am getting under .4 and most corrections are under .3.

This morning with even longer guide exposures of 10 secs I was often getting 0.0 and then under .3 so its getting pretty close to being spot on. But the weight effect worsens when the counterweight arm is at a higher angle and may be producing a drag causing slightly worse guiding.

Some subs the round stars are breathtakingly perfect. Others very good and close to perfect but needs a tad more.

I am hoping getting this little issue adjusted and a better PEC on a night of good seeing (last night seeing was spectacular) and a new large model and it could be perfect.

Greg.



Yes that is right.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

I suggest leaving the hand controller in a box and only connecting it when you absolutely have to for some reason (which should be a rare event). In the history of Paramount mounts, the hand controller is the #1 source of oddball problems. The guider ports are #2. Read through the old paramount forum on yahoogroups.com. I place dust cover plugs in all three of these ports. (I realize the hand controller has gone through multiple revisions and that the current one is by far much better than the old one.)

[gregbradley]

I use it all the time. For framing the image and lining up the next nights images with the ones already taken the night before. Its a fantastic little unit with the built in joystick and the adjustable sensitivity. You must use the move keys to frame your images in CCDSoft or Sky X?

I had an odd thing happen only once last night. I updated my Sky X to build 6249. I started CCDSoft to run my cameras as usual (not quite ready to add the step of Sky X running the cameras fully - soon) and
also connected the camera using the camera tab (I think this needs to be done to use automated t-point runs) and it all worked well for a while then I suddenly got an error message saying CCDSoft was no longer working and CCDsoft started flashing on and off the screen and I had to pull the battery to stop it.

I ran a clean up pgm to increase available ram etc and restarted it and all was well. But I did not connect the camera again in Sky X. Hadn't happened before with build 6248.

Greg

[frolinmod]

You shouldn't be able to connect both CCDSoft and the TheSkyX->Camera Tab to the camera at the same time - unless the Camera Tab is set to use "CCDSoft's Camera" which should work. I do (did until recently) that all the time. The only time I've had CCDSoft or TheSkyX "hang" on me is when I power down the camera without disconnecting them from it first.

I control everything from the comfort of my dining room table inside the house. I frame objects by slewing to them, use the telescope tab's jog control for small movements, then rotate the FOV (I have a Pyxis rotator).

[cfranks]

Re the hand controller, I'm with Greg. I have never used the MX without the HC connected (I must have missed the directive to remove it) and have yet to experience a T-Point problem attributable to it. I always use it to centre the initial calibration stars or the initial sync star if I haven't disturbed the OTA. I did a 350 point model 3 days ago with only one 'not enough stars' error when a cloud intervened.



I'm not very knowledgable about imaging etc but I don't understand how a good model can affect unguided tracking. Polar alignment and PEC, definately, but doesn't the model only allow greater accuracy for the slews? Sorry if it is a noob question but these forums are my only source of education in this area.

OK, I see another thread that suggests Protrack is derived from the model!

Charles

[DavidNg]

I wonder is it worth to update every SB daily builds and take unforeseen risks? or just to wait longer for tested "latest update". On SB forum, it appeared many users have issues with daily builds.

[frolinmod]

Turn on ProTrack. With a good model, Tpoint can model and correct for flexure and other stuff in real time thus improving tracking.

The last "latest update" took over a year to be updated. Do you really want to wait over a year for a bug fix? Daily builds come out often. No way would I ever wait around for a latest update. I might sooner drop dead. Also, in my experience the latest updates are not magically less buggy than the daily builds nor are the daily builds any more buggy than the latest updates (and if they are, then they are quickly fixed).

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=frolinmod;919056]You shouldn't be able to connect both CCDSoft and the TheSkyX->Camera Tab to the camera at the same time - unless the Camera Tab is set to use "CCDSoft's Camera" which should work. I do (did until recently) that all the time. The only time I've had CCDSoft or TheSkyX "hang" on me is when I power down the camera without disconnecting them from it first.


Yes that is what I have been doing. I think that is necessary to do automated t-point runs if you are controlling your camera in CCDsoft which I have been.

It only happened once but I didn't connect it again in SkyX so it may have been a once off thing. Who knows or I may have been running low on RAM.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

[

You know I thought of this point before I updated. If a system is working don't do anything is really the golden rule! Who knows what complications a subtle change can have on complex software.

Greg.