I'll be pleasantly surprised if the LX80 mount is not cheap and nasty. Superficially I see rough castings, weak joints where the tripod legs meet the hub and ordinary nuts instead of nylock nuts. I hope they've paid more attention to detail for the guts and electronics.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if the LX80 mount is not cheap and nasty. Superficially I see rough castings, weak joints where the tripod legs meet the hub and ordinary nuts instead of nylock nuts. I hope they've paid more attention to detail for the guts and electronics.
Agreed, the LX80 has the potential to be a very versitile and popular mount.
Really hope Meade has stepped up their game with these mounts and put together some real substance instead of their usual hot air.
I'm icthing to see the first indepth reviews of both the LX80 and LX800 mounts.
I was just thinking if these mounts are manufactured in USA then the price diffrence seems resonable. But if they are manufactured in Asia then the diffrence does not make as much sense. Indeed if you consider the Ioptron mounts the price from China (in US Dollars) is less than the USA price. But the price in Australia is more than the US price.
I recall there was some talk of Meade manufacturing in Mexico is that where the mounts are being made? or are they from China?
kicking myself at the lower end - just bought a minitower (ioptron) and planning to buy a ADM wedge for it in a few minths - and here is the LX80 doing everything i want!... oh well
I know the feeling.....
Oh well.
Let the "want-it-nows' get the first rubbishy batches.
We'll get the better ones down the line.
im wondering if the EQ/alt-az is an advertising gimmick? i find both type mounts just as easy to set up go-to with, only thing is smaller alt/az mounts are nice portable observing mounts, but that isnt the case here- if your imaging, why would you even take it out of EQ mode and have to fine tune the polar axis every set-up then?- i really cant see a benefit here unless your mainly observe and like to use binoviewers
im wondering if the EQ/alt-az is an advertising gimmick? i find both type mounts just as easy to set up go-to with, only thing is smaller alt/az mounts are nice portable observing mounts, but that isnt the case here- if your imaging, why would you even take it out of EQ mode and have to fine tune the polar axis every set-up then?- i really cant see a benefit here unless your mainly observe and like to use binoviewers
I see the hybrid being very useful and adaptable to many peoples different styles. For example, to use a dedicated EQ mount for observing can be very difficult to learn for some people not to mention the obscure angles to the eyepiece. Most people start and learn with a Alt-Az as they are easy and as you say smaller and compact but if you wish to experiment with imaging then you need a EQ mount or wedge which is expensive and involves getting another mount, scope etc.
Having both in one for a very reasonable price allows someone to dabble in both imaging and observing with one mount and scope. The person can learn how to use a scope in easy alt az config then as they learn they can delve into the eq side of things with their existing setup. Once they become more serious and experience then they get a proper setup to suit there needs. But one of these for the cost would be a great start (if they are any good) I seeing it being a win win.
Even for a more experienced user, having a hybrid, compact all in one that can easily be taken out to a site that can be used for both would be great. Pop out to a sight, do a bit of comfortable observing to test the seeing and or while you waited for a target to rise or be in the right spot, then slap it into eq for a bit of basic imaging, all in the one setup-brilliant.
If the LX80 turns out to be a good mount I see them being very popular.
For the LX80, they are using the Audiostar, hence we will wait and see how much if anything has been fixed. We already have the code for them fully analysed, so checking shouldnt be a big deal.
I suspect the LX800 will be using similar processors to the LS series,
and this is on a massive PCB inside the scope, NOT the Hbx.
We have not and are not even looking at that firmware as it is too hard to disassemble/decompile ( unless someone knows where to get a generic Blackfin disassembler as a basis for writing a custom one )
As such, even tho we know the LS has lots of bugs,
and the LX800 will probably have a pile too,
they probably arent going to be fixed by us.
Andrew
Andrew, you might be able to pickup one on the net. I just googled for one and it appears you may get it...takes a little searching through the links, though
Andrew, you might be able to pickup one on the net. I just googled for one and it appears you may get it...takes a little searching through the links, though
Ahh, but i need the source on "how" to disassemble,
vs do it all from scratch.
Meade have lots of data/text embedded in the code,
and this can throw a lot of disassy tools
Also, after disassy, i do a lot of automated post processing
to annotate vars and functions based on known byte patterns.
This means i really need the source to "roll my own" disassy.
Looking at the Blackfin docs on how the OpCodes go together
scared the bejeezus out of me
However, as the LX800 appears to use a std ASII control panel
i may already have the tools to work with that.
Trust Meade to make life difficult. You'd probably have to go to the original Blackfin source code at somewhere like Source Forge or the forum dealing with Blackfin.
If you can work with what you have, that'll make life a lot easier. However, you'd think Meade would finally have figured out that fully supporting their product, or even making it as functional and robust as it should be, would be a priority. Sells more gear if it works better.
Dear local Meade users, can I ask some dumb questions about the varieties of Autostar...
1) The Autostar II and III hand controllers seem to have 'shortcut buttons' for common objects such as Caldwell, Messier, NCG etc. Do these shortcut buttons give direct access to objects like Nexstar ? (unlike Autostar 497 where you have to navigate a heap of menu's to do anything).
2) So my next question is: does the "Audiostar" on the LX80 have shortcut buttons, or is it dumb like Autostar 497?
(I can't fathom why the Meade website is so uninformative in giving basic details about this sort of stuff).
1) The Autostar II and III hand controllers seem to have 'shortcut buttons' for common objects such as Caldwell, Messier, NCG etc. Do these shortcut buttons give direct access to objects like Nexstar ? (unlike Autostar 497 where you have to navigate a heap of menu's to do anything).
As noted, the Austostar II and III are basically identical ( other than the button lables ). The shortcut buttons essentially take you directly to the input screens for each object type.
The Audiostar is just a 497EP with a soundboard added.
Its not "dumb" per se,
but it has NO shortcut buttons for objects.
The 1..9 keys are normally mapped to slew speeds
Ie in ASII you press 1 to get the set speed menu, then press 1..9 to set the speed.
In the Audiostars, pressing 1..9 auto sets the speeds.
As noted, the Austostar II and III are basically identical ( other than the button lables ). The shortcut buttons essentially take you directly to the input screens for each object type.
The Audiostar is just a 497EP with a soundboard added.
Its not "dumb" per se,
but it has NO shortcut buttons for objects.
The 1..9 keys are normally mapped to slew speeds
Ie in ASII you press 1 to get the set speed menu, then press 1..9 to set the speed.
In the Audiostars, pressing 1..9 auto sets the speeds.
Andrew
Thanks Andrew, I meant 'dumb' as in the #497 lacks the short-cut buttons the Autostar II and III have. Someone on CloudyNights also explained to me that the #497 has the computer inside the HC, whilst the mounts that use ASII and III have the computer inside the mount. So I assume the LX80 cannot take ASII or III, which is a shame IMHO.
Having said that, I believe the #497EP controller has the feature of several Megabytes of memory for User uploadable Meade tours, whilst I know my bog standard #497 controller has only a pathetic 64K or so. Can someone verify that?
Having said that, I believe the #497EP controller has the feature of several Megabytes of memory for User uploadable Meade tours, whilst I know my bog standard #497 controller has only a pathetic 64K or so. Can someone verify that?
The 497 has 1MB of total memory for code, data and "user stuff"
64k of this is allocated for "user stuff" and the rest is full to the brim.
The 497EP/Audiostars have 2Mb of total memory
128k of this is allocated for "user stuff"
There actually is a lot of free space left in the 497EP but its not made available for user data.
