Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Bunn
I hear what your saying about the RMS values not being as good. Is that the only issue, is it just that the RMS values are not as good or is the mount not pointing how you want it to?
I wouldn't use the 20 point recalibration data to gauge your PA, this needs to be done using a 50 point model (see the last post on this page). But if you do end up doing another larger tpoint model, you will get a better approximation of the PA and can make the recommended adjustments with more confidence as there are more samples to work from.
Josh |
Hi Josh,
you have been busy fielding all sorts of questions!!
Thanks for the clarificationn. I'm not really so concerned with pointing, but if the aim is to improve PA perhaps doing a recalibration (with 50 points) will work just fine. But, the real issue for me in doing that is that you end up with recommendations that cannot be super-modeled. Given that the original data was super-modeled, and one is trying to refine those numbers, after a recalibration you end up with numbers that really don't tell you if your adjutment moves actually helped. Am I making any sense here? So, it seems that if you want to compare super model numbers before with super model numbers after the only way is to start a new model from scratch.
The only way I can imagine out of this situation might be to save the original super model of many hundreds of points. Start over with a 50 point run and run the super model. That would tell you if the adjustment was correct and PA actually better. If so, discard that new model model and re-load the original super model and do a 50 point recalibration into that model. The PA report wouldn't necessarily show an improvement but you would know that it was actually better. Can you think of another way?
Peter