Philipp,

I also think that 5053 has another bug with regards to PA. If I chose the DDM85
way of adjusting Az, center a star and click move. Then adjust Az so that the
star is again centered it only corrects for roughly half of the Az error.

I did the following.

1. Small PF west (5 fields)
2. Load pox into AS
3. Calculate configuration and chose "use now"
4. Select Polar align (in my case Alt error 0.2 and Az error 25 arcmin)
5. I chose DDM85 way of adjusting
6. Center a star
7. Click "move star", click no to the clear conf question.
8. Adjust Az to bring the star back to the center
9. Clear conf
10. Make a new PF
11. Load pox into AS
12. Calculate configuration
13. Select polar align (now Alt error 0.5 and Az error 12.4 arcmin)

It worked ok for alt adjustments (that is the procedure corrected for the full
error), but for Az adjustments I have to make an over correction.

There seem to be close to a factor of 2.

BR
Matts

--- In ASA_AstroSystemeAustria@yahoogroups.com, "philipp_keller" <kellersky@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Robert was right. Also his conclusion what was the mistake was close.
> The problem was that I calculated the coordinates with the old PA values, then
deleted the PA values and made a relative move, which makes a big mistake of
course.
> Right now you can avoid this bug by selecting no if questioned to delete the
old PA values but I have also corrected this bug in Version 5055. In Version
5055 everything should now hopefully work !
>
> Philipp
>
>
>
> --- In ASA_AstroSystemeAustria@yahoogroups.com, robert.pudlo@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just did another test.
> > In version 5.0.5.3 autoslew asks whether it should delete the old PA error
values before moving the star for the polar adjustment.
> > Yesterday I did choose "yes" (the recommended option) and experienced the
problem with the error being overcompensated.
> > Today I did another PA but I've chosen the option "no" and the adjustment
seemed to work as in the former versions, so no overcompensation.
> > I can think of one possible reason for that behavior:
> > Let's assume, the PA error is 6 arcminutes towards north (or up). There are
two ways to move the mount to a new position: Either tell it to go to an
absolute position 6 arcminutes further north, or tell the mount to move the
dec-axis by 6 arcminutes (so a relative move).
> > If in the first case the old PA error would be deleted before moving the
mount, the new position would be wrong by the old PA error value. Maybe that's
what's happening - but it's only an uneducated guess.
> > I hope that Philip will look into that.
> >
> > Did you choose "yes" or "no" as an option? In case you've chosen "yes",
could you please verify whether PA works correctly when choosing the "no"
option?
> >
> > Clear skies,
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > --- In ASA_AstroSystemeAustria@yahoogroups.com, "astrowhwiii" <astro@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > i had the exact same problem
> > > think i wound up going back and forth a bunch of times
> > > just cutting the correction in half
> > >
> > > even more frustrating as the nature of the corrections with this mount
complicate drift aligning since each movement changes your reference angle.
> > >
> > > -bill w
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ASA_AstroSystemeAustria@yahoogroups.com, robert.pudlo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > after a few weeks of bad weather, I just set up my DDM60Pro again after
upgrading from autoslew 5.0.5.2 to 5.0.5.3.
> > > > While doing the polar alignment, I realized that other than with the
older version of autoslew, the altitude error seems to get overcompensated.
> > > > I had an altitude error of around 6 arcminutes with the north end being
too high. After autoslew moved the star near the meridian and I compensated with
the altitude screws, the error after the next iteration was again 6 arcminutes,
but now with the north end being too low. After the next correction, it was too
high again, so I saw a pattern and only compensated for half of the error - and
got the altitude error below 1 arcminute.
> > > >
> > > > So for me it looks like there might be a software bug that was
introduced with the changes in the latest version (5.0.5.2 worked fine for me).
Azimuth works fine as well.
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody see the same behavior?
> > > >
> > > > Clear skies,
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > >
> >
>