Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 23-07-2021, 11:27 AM
xthestreams's Avatar
xthestreams (Paul)
photon disrupter

xthestreams is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Paramount PEC and the Southern Hemisphere - finally solved?

Hola fellow owners of the crimson beasts.

In the process of trying to diagnose what I thought might have been a hardware problem, I've been working with Patrick Wallace and Matthew Bisque on what appears to have been a subtle bug in their PEC training routine that generated sub-optical PEC curves when trained in the southern hemisphere.

From what I could tell, the curve was slightly out of phase compared to what it should be, so it was correcting, just not as fully as it should/could.

I've been doing testing, there are still a few bugs to iron out, but I was wondering if anyone else wants to give it a crack?

AFAIK it's automatically downloaded as part of the daily build, so should be available to everyone with a subscription.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23-07-2021, 05:42 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Really? I never noticed.

My PMEII tracking was always "seeing limited" ...i.e. it was hard to tell the Dec from the RA curves most nights.

That said, sure happy to try the new daily build (when the weather clears )
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-07-2021, 04:19 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
This problem goes back so many years that I am actually "not a happy camper" when it comes to Software Bisque solving end user problems. Even though a friend and I laboriously years ago proved to SB that that the PE curve was 180 degrees out of phase it didn't get fixed, even though SB said it was fixed. Many of us in the S.H. told SB that it was still broken but they simply didn't believe us. Now supposedly it's fixed. Great. I hope so, but I will continue to use PemPro. Sorry if I sound overly bitter. I have posted serious questions on their forum that were jut ignored. The mounts are great when all is in order. Customer service varies all over the map.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-07-2021, 05:32 PM
xthestreams's Avatar
xthestreams (Paul)
photon disrupter

xthestreams is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Complete agreement - I saw your earlier threads and had assumed the bug must have been resolved.

Whatever the problem, it's subtle (at least for me), perhaps 15-20' out of phase but enough to make a difference.

Having said that I am yet to test on my Paramount ME, let's see if it's all in my head (versus me debugging my MX).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25-07-2021, 08:22 PM
macditto (Niall)
Registered User

macditto is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Bathurst, NSW, Australia
Posts: 8
I have had this problem as well

Thank you!
I tried so many times to get PEC working on my Paramount and at best it gave me the same performance as no PEC. Now I understand why I just didn't get an improvement in the peak to peak RMS error, when I went through the process most carefully. In the end Patrick Wallace ran the PEC training log data through his own analysis package and generated the PEC curve for me. When I applied it to the Mount I got the improvement I expected.
So now it seems all along, the problem was their end. I will have to go back to my posts on the subject and see what they have to say about that.
CS Niall MacNeill
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26-07-2021, 06:05 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
A simple enough test would be to run a PEC with PEMPro, run a PEC with TheSkyX and just compare the two curves after applying each curve to the mount. They wouldn't be identical, but they should certainly be similar in phase and in major corrections! If PEMPro gives a good result and TSX doesn't my strong guess is that the phase is simply shifted to an incorrect position.

If there is a difference this could be demonstrated to Software Bisque. It should be conclusive. I'd do it but I'm currently not able to set up my gear as I'm completing a new home build. When the home is completed should I not be completely broke (!) I will start on the new observatory where it is nice and dark.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-07-2021, 07:05 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
I've only used Pempro with my PME and a PMX I had and got good results.
The SB program didn't seem to be anywhere near as polished.

I use the factory installed AP PEC curve on my AP1600 and that seems to be working. I should really update the curve as that
is recommended practice.

Pempro also has a nice polar alignment routine which is an alternative to Tpoint.

Greg.

Last edited by gregbradley; 26-07-2021 at 07:07 AM. Reason: t
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-07-2021, 05:40 PM
Logieberra's Avatar
Logieberra (Logan)
Registered User

Logieberra is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto View Post
This problem goes back so many years that I am actually "not a happy camper" when it comes to Software Bisque solving end user problems. Even though a friend and I laboriously years ago proved to SB that that the PE curve was 180 degrees out of phase it didn't get fixed, even though SB said it was fixed. Many of us in the S.H. told SB that it was still broken but they simply didn't believe us. Now supposedly it's fixed. Great. I hope so, but I will continue to use PemPro. Sorry if I sound overly bitter. I have posted serious questions on their forum that were jut ignored. The mounts are great when all is in order. Customer service varies all over the map.

Peter
OMG Peter I remember Phil and I had these same “Southern Hemisphere” issues with our MXs back in 2013/14. What a joke…
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-08-2021, 11:08 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
That was a bad experience but I must say customer service at Bisque has been good to me. My MX had a poor worm and I only had to mention it to Bisque and they sent me a new worm assembly that was excellent.

It looked like an expensive component.

Just use Pempro. Its an easy program to use and gives great results.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 13-08-2021, 01:34 AM
Googaliser's Avatar
Googaliser (Marc)
Permanent Beginner...

Googaliser is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
That was a bad experience but I must say customer service at Bisque has been good to me. My MX had a poor worm and I only had to mention it to Bisque and they sent me a new worm assembly that was excellent.

It looked like an expensive component.

Just use Pempro. Its an easy program to use and gives great results.

Greg.
They did the same for me too - I was actually in Bali at the time (remember those days when we could travel ?). I ran into trouble with my PMX and they Fedex'd a new worm block to me so I only missed a few days imaging.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14-07-2022, 11:19 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
I took delivery of an MX+ recently and when I ran the new “Train PEC” Routine it failed – it actually doubled the PE rather than reducing it.

I raised a Problem Report on the SB Forum, and they acknowledged the problem, but have not yet provided a fix or a date for a fix.

However, as I searched around, I came across this post on IIS (from Paul) and was extremely surprised to see that there has been an ongoing problem (several years) with the PE routine related to Southern Hemisphere owners, whether it be the “Legacy“ Process where the user performed several manual process steps, or the new “Train PEC” Process which is more automated.

I do hope SB fix this problem as I would prefer the HW/SW to work as described in the Manual, rather than having to resort to a 3rd party solution like PEMPro.

For those that have resorted to PEMPro, did you find it an effective solution? I have a feeling that I might be forced down this path given how long the problem has been outstanding and with no date yet provided for a solution.

Thank you Peter for commenting in my Problem Report of the SB Forum, it is reassuring to know that there is an alternative method.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14-07-2022, 04:13 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,064
Ive tried pempro and Sky PEC intermittently for over a decade now on my PME, they were always crap, I just gave up. Ive found that just a dense super model was fine. If your PE is reasonably smooth then you can just guide it out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14-07-2022, 04:37 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Really? I never noticed.

My PMEII tracking was always "seeing limited" ...i.e. it was hard to tell the Dec from the RA curves most nights.

That said, sure happy to try the new daily build (when the weather clears )
"daily build", what a joke, why not just get it right 1st time instead of using customers as beta testers. I have used sky6 on a remote rig for over a decade, updated nothing, it just works. Remote astrophotography is not suited to "daily builds", its dodgy lazy software development IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14-07-2022, 05:15 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
Ive tried pempro and Sky PEC intermittently for over a decade now on my PME, they were always crap, I just gave up. Ive found that just a dense super model was fine. If your PE is reasonably smooth then you can just guide it out.
Thanks Fred, as a new entrant into the SB Paramount world, I appreciate your feedback in helping me navigate this new environment.

I have to set up and tear down each night, so I generally spend the first 20-30 mins running a T-Point Model of between 75 and 120 Pointing Samples and then touching up the PA with the Bisque APA Routine, which has worked well so far.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-07-2022, 12:00 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Hi Dennis,

I think you shouldn't hesitate to use PEMPro. It is quite easy and the results have always worked for me. My MEII has very good uncorrected PE (~2.5 ArcSec PTP) but after correction has gone down to .6 PTP. Admittedly you need a very good steady night to get this result. If you want to guide, well Fred is correct, you can guide it out. However, if you want good unguided results a good PEC is required!

Also, if you have a good model you really only need to recalibrate the data. You don't need so many points to recalibrate and this can save a lot of time!

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16-07-2022, 01:25 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
Thanks Peter, given that SB could not provide me with a fix by date for the Southern Hemisphere PE “doubling up” issue, I used PEMPro last night and had excellent results.

It only seems to work with the 32 Bit version of The Sky X, so I had to configure that to get the ball rolling. I also got an ASCOM error for my camera (QHY268M Bin 1x1) but when I changed the Binning to 2x2 it seemed okay.

For the pre-PEC run, PEMPro reported the following for my MX+ Mount:
RMS Error = 0.834
Periodic Error = +2.1 / -2.1

For the PE Enabled validation run, PEMPro reported as follows:
RMS Error = 0.752
Periodic Error = +0.0 / -0.0

I was a little puzzled by the 0 value for PE so I slewed to M8 and then M16 and grabbed 120 second test shots (at a FL of 2250 mm) and the stars were nice and round, no sign of any egg shaped trailing, etc.

Previously, in a batch of 30 sec exposures I would have some 10-20% showing evidence of slight trailing, so a good result.

Thanks again for commenting in my problem report post on the SB Forums, it steered me in the right direction.

Ypipee - no more autoguiding....

Cheers

Dennis

EDIT:
1. Just added a 60 sec x 20 frames Unguided Raw shot of M16. No calibration, just Align and Stack in PI so it looks a little rough.

2. SB just advised that PEMPro can be used with The Sky X Pro 64 Bit and their ASCOM2X Mount Adapter, so I will give that a try next time.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M16 30x30 Lum DBE Crop 1280.jpg)
124.5 KB104 views

Last edited by Dennis; 17-07-2022 at 09:57 AM. Reason: EDIT Note 2 added.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18-07-2022, 08:56 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Hi Dennis,

Good that you finally got an acceptable result with PEC!

What might be interesting to look at would be the curve from PEMPro that works and a curve from TSX that doesn't. My guess is that they will look similar but either be phase shifted or inverted. Maybe you could post them here because I'm really curious. It also might assist Software Bisque (or convince them of the error).

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18-07-2022, 12:09 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
Hi Peter

I've just had a look at the PEMPro generated Data Files, and the Bisque TCS Train PEC Log generated Data Files, and they appear to be in different formats.

So, it seems that I can render a BTCS log file in The Sky X Environment to produce results and a rendered PE Curve, and I can then do similar in the PEMPro Environment (Log Viewer) with PEMPro generated data files.

However, it seems I cannot mix and match and I don't have a Data File generated within the BTCS AFTER I had uploaded the PEMPro PE Data to the MX+ to get the final results.

The next time I am out, I will run a data collection process within the BTCS on the PE as uploaded by PEMPro and see what that looks like.

I am cognisant of commercial processes and data, so I don’t want to breach the trust of the relevant software developers by exposing any proprietary data, etc.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 19-07-2022, 09:28 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
Hi Peter

As I wasn't expecting any Southern Hemisphere related PE problem, it took me a while to validate my set up and operational practices to make sure that I wasn't the source of the problem.

This has left me with data files scattered over several sessions and 3 PC's which makes it difficult to analyse that data with confidence due to variations in Image Scale, Position Angle, windy nights (lots of them!), etc.

However, now that I believe that SB has acknowledged that there is a Southern Hemisphere PE defect, I am better informed. For my next session I will create a formal running sheet and make records of the output from PEMPro, the SB Legacy Procedure and the new SB TrainPEC Procedure.

In the meantime, I opened my last (successful) PEMPro Log File in the PEMPro Log Viewer and it indicated a Peak-to-Peak PE error of 0.851 arscec/pixel.

Cheers

Dennis

EDIT:
Added the BEFORE screen capture to show the PE before it was measured and applied to the Mount.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (PEMPro Info Panel.jpg)
151.2 KB67 views
Click for full-size image (PEMPro Info Panel BEFORE.jpg)
181.6 KB67 views

Last edited by Dennis; 19-07-2022 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20-07-2022, 03:23 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,704
Help, I find myself in an awkward position, caught between advice that appears to be contradictory in how an end user can implement it in the relationship between these two SW products.

I don’t want to be “right” – I would just like my Paramount MX+ and The Sky X Pro to work as described in the TheSky X User Guide. That is, PEC Training working in the Southern Hemisphere.

On the SB Forum I am led to believe that PEMPro is interoperable with TSX 64-bit.

I posted a question on the PEMPro Support Forum re The Sky X Pro 32-bit and 64-bit interface to PEMPro and have been advised that PEMPro is a 32-bit application and by Microsoft design will invoke the 32-bit version of other applications it interacts with.

I understand and I am sympathetic to the position of developers who may restrict themselves to only commenting on their own software products, and their right to protect their commercial and intellectual property interests, but it leaves the end user in no man’s land as to what is the truth about how these SW products interact considering such apparently contradictory advice.

Oh well, at least I know PEMPro works with TSX 32-bit and gives me excellent results, so I’ll count my blessings for that positive outcome.

In the meantime, I would be most glad to hear of the experience of any Paramount user who has used PEMPro with their Paramount, within The Sky X Pro 64-bit environment, or have you all used the 32-bit version?

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement