If one runs into issues then switching to PhD2 could lead to a solution exactly for the reasons you give. I honestly think that for a beginner the internal guider is good enough. The topic poster is new to astrophotography and to guiding, I merely wanted to show that using the internal guider is ok. I wanted to throw in an opposite opinion, that’s all. I know that’s not the intention but that’s how it can be interpreted. However, this thread was turning into a collection of arguments that seemed, at least in the way I interpreted them, to lead to suggest that the internal guider should be avoided. Cheers, Dougĭoug, you make fair points and you are absolutely right. As long as folks realize this, they'll be better informed. PHD2 can absolutely help in this particular area where kstars/ekos isn't quite as mature. Having the right tools is half the battle. If you want great narrow field images, you need a well tuned mount and great guiding. A lot of people worked really hard on that program, and it shows (just as it does for our beloved Kstars/Ekos).įor any new astrophotographer, I think it is very wise advice to pay attention to mount performance via guiding. However, if a user wants peak performance (or just to improve), then PHD2 has the tools to help achieve this. The internal guider works fine when there's no issue(s). Again, there's no disrespect here for the internal guider. Ekos can't analyze prior guiding (post-mortem log graphing), can't do frequency analysis to support PEC, can't show calibration backlash, has no guide assistant to help users in setting appropriate parameter values, is lacking in more guiding metrics than HFR (SNR, noise), lacks a good drift align tool, etc. Saying there's no need not to use the internal guider is definitely misguiding (pun intended)! Just asking folks in the forum for advice is nice, but mhammady asked about the rationale for selecting one vs the other tool. So, does the Ekos internal guider have the tools needed to help users identify under-performance and help analyze / correct? I think we both know the answer is not really. If a mount has no issues (and it appears yours doesn't), great! The issue is that most mounts won't achieve peak performance until guiding is analyzed and adjustments are made. In reading your reply to mhammady, I think your advice in this instance is not as good/fair as it should have been. I found the case to switch compelling because I want every arcsec of mount performance improvement I can get! I can't live without the log viewer now! Cheers, "As far as I am concerned there really is no need to not use the internal guider." My advice would be to install PHD2, watch a couple of YouTube videos, and then decide for yourself whether you need or want its features over the internal guider. You might find the guide star calibration graph, Guide Assistant, Drift Align, or Guide Star Stats interesting and important. The tool is available here: /phd2utils/Īfter switching, I found PHD2 has several support tools on their "Tools" and "View" menus worth having. PHD2's log analysis tool for analyzing (post run) guiding is very solid. I would use this tool even if I did have a view of Polaris! Next, I wanted to analyze my mount's Periodic Error and fit a curve for upload to the mount. My specific original reason for switching was related to needing a good Polar Align drift align tool (I don't have a direct view of Polaris at my site). I have nothing against the internal guider. Slightly more complicated, but IMHO, worth it. I recently switched to PHD2 and I am really glad I did. On the other hand, IF you are interested in analyzing your guiding (in hopes to maximize performance), or you would enjoy having additional guiding tools, then PHD2 is likely a good way to go. If you're not that "into" guiding, then it will probably work great for you. Another opinion to consider: I used the Ekos internal guider for quite a while, and it works simply and sufficiently.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |