Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
I'm kind of confused by the questions... Is there a reason why PHD is listed twice?  |
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
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).
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
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.
|
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.