nakbrooks

What did it cost to update the 85XL to absolute encoders?

Am I correct in thinking that the ASA2 software has been developed in-house.

If you are laying a power cable you might as well also lay a fibre optic cable - even if you don't use it now it will be useful later and will avoid having to dig the garden up again. Even better, lay a conduit with a pull-wire in it so you can pull other cables through at a later date. Remember that while fibre optic cables can share the same conduit as power cables, LAN cables cannot (power causes interference), at least not unless you use heavily shielded LAN cabling. WiFi is good but fixed cables are much more reliable. You can get devices that will let you pass USB, serial and TCP/IP over fibre very reliably (although the good ones are not cheap).

I use a low spec industrial pc to run the mount. Cheaper than most laptops and designed to handle temperature extremes. Basically any pc that meets the spec to run Windows will be powerful enough to run the mount.

I agree with Waldemar - the iCron is a great piece of kit. I use one to pass the usb video from a Malincam from the dome to my house - 150 metres over fibre.

I can't comment on the power supply part of your question but, in my experience, USB problems are caused either by poor cables (which you have discounted) or by software conflicts. Have you changed any usb or virtual serial drivers recently? Have you installed another usb device recently (or changed the drivers for any existing USB device)? Was everything OK before you made the power supply changes? If so, does the problem go away if you revert to the standard power supplies? Have you tried unplugging all other USB devices, just testing with the mount itself? Does that work? Basically it is a matter of going back to the simplest possible configuration that works, then adding one component at a time until it stops working. This should identify the problem component. Nigel

Interesting. I may be reading too much into it but it seems like ASA are moving to two product lines - one aimed primarily at the serious amateur (emphasis on DDM60 and mobility) and the other on professional (permanent static installations using DDM160 or the large alt/az mounts). This may well be a sensible strategy as at the moment ASA struggles to properly support the amateur market, but where this would leave users who have invested in higher end mounts such as the DDM85XL but still classify themselves as serious amateurs I'm not sure.

Well today is the 19th September, the promised date of announcement of ASA 2.0 when all our questions regarding documentation and future direction will be answered. I hope that ASA will post full details here, or on the website, for the benefit of most of us who cannot be at AME. Nigel

I have a fairly heavy 125mm Hutech/Borg refractor piggy-backed on my ASA 400mm Cassegrain reflector using an ADM adjustable plate mounted in a second dovetail that ASA fitted to the 400mm OTA, opposite the main dovetail. This is all on a DDM85 XL. I don't seem to have any significant balance issues, but as both OTAs are exactly inline in the same axis I wouldn't expect a balance problem. Mounting 3 OTAs would be more tricky. Obviously if you piggybacked the third outboard on the second so they are all on the same axis you shouldn't get balance issues, but that is a lot of piggybacked kit and flexure would probably be an issue (as would shutter opening width and dome synchronisation if you have a dome). Nigel

I also would be happy to pay for new major releases PROVIDED they are fully documented and supported. I have no inside information but from what they have announced, it looks like ASA are moving towards 2 families of software: The legacy family (Autoslew, Sequence, etc) and the new 2.0 family. The new family will be fully documented (I hope!) and is likely to be a paid-for upgrade for existing users. On the other hand it looks like the legacy family will receive less attention, probably just bug fixes and some documentation updates in priority areas, but not a full documentation re-write. It would be nice to have confirmation that this is the case. Whether this is acceptable depends upon: a. The feature set, quality and documentation of the ver 2.0 family. b. How long it takes for ver 2.0 to be released. c. The price of ver 2.0 for existing users. d. Whether ver 2.0 can control existing ASA mounts and OTAs (at least ones that are 3 years old in my case). Hopefully this will all be clarified at the official launch. Nigel

Thanks Dietmar. That is the sort of information we need. ASA needs to produce a clear route map for hardware evolution and software evolution, showing the planned timelines and which combinations of hardware/software will interoperate. There should also be a published policy on version maintenance: a. Which versions will continue to be fully developed and enhanced (probably only the current versions of each family of software?). b. Which versions will be functionally stabilised (i.e. Not further enhanced) but will continue to have all bugs fixed and will continue to be supported (maybe last 2 major versions of each family of software?). c. Which versions will only be supported on a "best endeavours" basis - with users encouraged to move to later versions at a discounted price. This will ensure we all know where we stand. Nigel

This is only acceptable if EITHER: a. The new software works with existing/recent hardware and is available as a free upgrade to existing users, OR b. The existing software continues to be supported and maintained for a reasonable period, after which it is made open source, and is also fully documented. It is NOT acceptable if existing users are forced to struggle on with poorly documented software that is not maintained. If ASA does not have the resources to innovate new solutions while also supporting existing solutions at the same time then it really must address its strategy. New customers are unlikely to buy the ver 2.0 hardware/software if they think that it will also cease to be supported properly when ver 3.0 eventually gets released. Nigel

With the total lack of communication concerning the future direction of the software, the thing that concerns me is that the ASA mounts are totally dependant upon the Autoslew family. I do not know who owns that software (ASA or Dr. Keller) but if for any reason it stopped being maintained our very expensive hardware might become useless. It would be comforting to know that ASA has arrangements in place to enable the software to be maintained without dependence on a single individual. Either there should be escrow arrangements, or maybe it could become open source?

Fully agree. The posts in the images section are inspirational and I absolutely would not want to discourage them. But we need more information from ASA on current developments and more support for those of us who are struggling to use very expensive kit with totally inadequate documentation.

++ votes for that post.

I've had numerous USB problems. Most of them turn out to be damaged or sub-standard cables. Try using another cable to connect the PC to the mount and also to connect the mount hub to the camera. Also if anything else is connected to the mount hub disconnect it and see if that helps (if it does then the problem may be the cable to that other device or some form of hardware conflict). Also check device manager in Windows - does it report any problems with the hub or any devices connected to it? USB problems are very frustrating because the configuration can change dynamically, so even if you get it working, adding or changing another USB device anywhere on the system may cause problems to recur. Nigel

If you do it like the photo in the manual you should be fine.

The results will be interesting. Theoretically if all the mass is distributed equally on both axes, and if there are no off-axis masses that aren't compensated for, the balancing tool in Autoslew should give identical results whatever the orientation. But it doesn't, at least not for me. If I adjust things to get perfect balance in one orientation (eg pointing at polar North with the mount in the West) then move to another orientation (eg pointing at the zenith with the mount East) I find I am no longer balanced - the difference isn't much, not enough to worry about, but the fact it exists at all is interesting. If you achieve a perfect physical balance as you describe in all 3 axes it will be interesting to see what Autoslew's balance tool makes of it when you get your mount back and try it in various orientations. These displacement activities while we wait for hardware to be fixed or long periods of bad weather to end can get a bit anal I find. I've spent several weeks re-architecting my perfectly functional observatory web site to be multi-lingual and use an n-tier architecture. Total waste of time really, but it keeps me out of mischief and I now know a lot more about object-oriented PHP programming and client/server interaction using JQuery and AJAX than I ever thought I would need to know! Particularly at my age. But I'm back on site at the observatory this weekend for 3 weeks and the weather forecast is excellent so hopefully I can get back to astronomy. Nigel

Anyone know what the announcement at NEAF on ASA 2.0 was all about?

Yes, could ASA please post any major announcements here or on the main ASA web site (the News on the web site hasn't been updated for almost 8 months). I'm sure we are all anxiously awaiting news of the official release of the next software versions, and especially news of better documentation.

Thanks Luke. I'm also 3600mm fl so looks like I need to get to within a couple of arc mins. The ASA pier has plenty of adjustment, but what makes it complicated is firstly the weight and secondly the fact that, although the mount is equatorial, the adjustment on the pier is basically Alt/Az. It has 6 sets of bolts around the base at 60deg intervals that need to be adjusted in unison to tilt the pier left/right (E/W) or forward/back (N/S), plus a pair of bolts to rotate the whole pier about its vertical axis. Nigel

Just another quick question. I'm aware that, with a pointing model, Autoslew can compensate for less than perfect polar alignment, although field rotation may be an issue. Just how good should my physical polar alignment be? Is +/- a couple of degrees OK or does it have to be within a small number of arc mins (for astrophotography and unguided exposures of, say, 5 minutes)? Nigel

Yes it does George. But adjusting the whole pier assembly is a much more major task than simply adjusting the mount would be, so I was trying to do as much as possible in daylight. On a related topic, I presume the Alt and H figures displayed by Autoslew are calculated using deltas from the home position found during home find. Can I rely upon them as being absolute Alt and H degrees or can they vary from the true Alt/H and, if so, is there a way of syncing once I have obtained polar alignment such that an Alt of 90 is genuinely vertical and an H of 180 is genuinely horizontal. Is this what the "Set New Home Position" command does (I've never found a decent description of that command)? Nigel

Adjusting the pier is the only way of adjusting (physical) polar alignment on the DDM85XL/Pier combination. The DDM85XL bolts rigidly to the pier and it is the pier itself that has to be aligned. In principle this is good, because there is one less potential source of misalignment. In practice it is tricky because the weight of the whole assembly means that adjusting the pier is quite tricky. There are 3 axes around which I need to align: - East/West vertical alignment of the pier. This is relatively straightforward as I can use a spirit level up the sides of the pier to ensure a coarse vertical alignment east/west. - North/South vertical alignment of the pier. This is the tricky one. Because the pier is Z-shaped there is no vertical surface on the north or south sides to check whether it is vertical using a spirit level. I can't see an easy way of doing daylight coarse north/south adjustment so will have to rely upon the normal nighttime polar alignment process for that. - Rotational alignment in the z-axis. This is also relatively easy. I have a north/south line drawn on the observatory floor accurate to around 0.25deg (created using sun's shadow at noon during observatory construction) and there is a flat surface at the side of the base of the pier that I can set a laser against and check that the laser is parallel to the line on the floor. [Just paused there to watch a gheko crawl across the observatory floor, first one I've seen this Spring here]. Having checked the pier alignment East/West as best I can with a spirit level and compared it to my earlier-described method it does seem there is a discrepancy of about 2.5deg. i.e. If I check both across the telescope plate (East/West) and along the top of the counterweight arm these both agree, but differ by about 2.5deg from the pier vertical (as measured with a spirit level). I guess I'll have to leave it at that for daytime coarse adjustment and continue tonight. Nigel

I'm in the process of polar alignment. Before I try and fine tune the alignment I need to make sure the pier is as near vertical as possible - that is easier said than done with the ASA equatorial ("bent") pier as it has no vertical or horizontal edges against which to use a spirit level for coarse alignment. Would the following procedure work for coarse alignment or am I missing something: 1. Home Find then move the mount using Autoslew until Autoslew shows 90.0 deg in its Alt box and 180 deg in its H box (see image_1 attached). 2. Place a spirit level across the East/West horizontal surface of the OTA (see image_2 attached). 3. Adjust the pier until the spirit level indicates the OTA is horizontal East/West. 4. Repeat 2 & 3 for North/South. 5. Do normal fine polar alignment at nighttime. If I can use this process to get the pier vertical to within 1 degree in the daytime then it will make final adjustment at nighttime much quicker because, with the DDM85XL and the "bent pier", alignment can only be done by adjusting the entire pier (the mount itself cannot be adjusted separately) and with a total weight of several hundred kg and 18 adjustment bolts adjusting the pier is not quick. Nigel