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 (David)]

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 (Fred)]

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.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

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.

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.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

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

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.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

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

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Customer support is poor though...

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.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

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

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.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

PMX has promise but its not perfect and it sure isn't a PME.

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 (Logan)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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]

[QUOTE=gregbradley;898801


Gee whiz Phil you are easy going.

Greg.[/QUOTE]

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

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 (Phil)]

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]

Originally Posted by frolinmod

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.

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.

Originally Posted by frolinmod

Default image link parameters really do work.

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 (Logan)]

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]

Originally Posted by cventer

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.

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.

you need to setup the FOV indicators in the Sky X

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

index error out of range error 731 (no reference in the manuals as to what that means).

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.

Sky X appears to want the value based on the binning you are shooting - I may still not have that right though!

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.

The camera window where you can change binning etc was clicked off at some point and its unclear where to reactivate it.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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