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
2. Guidemaster
3. MaxIm DL
4. CCDSoft 5. Don't autoguide or guide manually
6 (equal). Guidecam that doesn't require software
6 (equal). Envisage (voted for as "other software not mentioned specifically in poll)
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.
Last edited by allan gould; 14-07-2009 at 03:43 PM.
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.
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
Took longer than I would have liked to get it going with the Starshoot autoguider too...
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!
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 {} 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.
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.
I'm kind of confused by the questions... Is there a reason why PHD is listed twice?
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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%.
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
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
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....
} 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.
