"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."
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!
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."
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.
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?
its in the T-point add on user guide. There is a reference there to set it up. Perhaps it refers back to the Sky X manual section on Image Link setup.
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.
Thanks I'll check that. What I did was swap cameras to 8300 chipped camera which it preferred!
You are referring to this?:Tools->Preferences->Advanced. Scroll down. It's the "Bad pointing sample criteria (degrees):" entry Chris V pointed this out to me last week and I am sure it will help with the 16803 chipped camera.
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.
As I recall the Sky 6 you enter the 1x1 binning image scale in t-point and not the image scale at higher binnings. SkyX I think uses the binned image scale.
Huh? It's clear as day: Display->Camera
Yep that's it. Thanks.
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.)
2nd camera comes off clicking the gear symbol on the telescope tab. It doesn't have binning or cooling. You have to check the autosave though as Image Link won't work unless its on a saved image.
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).
Good idea.
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.
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
Last edited by gregbradley; 01-10-2012 at 08:10 PM.
"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.
"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"
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.
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.
Great service from Software Bisque!
Cheers
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
