malc-c

Sounds like a combination of backlash and balance. Remember it's not simply a case of balancing the OTA on the DEC and RA axis, you need to check the balance (well CG) of the tube with the camera and guidescopes. It's an old video but explains scope balancing easier than describing the actions in a post https://youtu.be/uK2bXfVNoQU

I do love all these DIY experiments... but in all honesty would it not be simpler to use an EQ mount, or in the case of a dobsonian, wedge the base !

I use an original QHY5 as a guide camera on my setup, with windows 10. I still have an original ASCOM driver which hopefully can be attached to this post which you could try, along with the test application. As far as I can remember this was this driver I used, however I would need to open up the observatory and check that, but if there is a later driver it will be on the observatory PC and I'll get that one for you as well if you find the attached doesn't work. I did find a link for the QHY5 driver and Updater software https://www.qhyccd.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=29&id=1 which may have been the driver used (it was some time ago when I put this machine together and I've slept since then !) QHY5.zip

To be honest, EQMOD is more beneficial for those imaging rather than visual observing. If you have a camera attached then centring a target can be done by changing the values in the drop down box near he NSEW buttons to make the mount move faster or slower. However to do the same whilst looking at a target through an eyepiece requires the use of a game pad, which effectively replaces the handset that came with the scope. The good part about EQMOD is that once you have the target central you can add it to the alignment points and thus increase the accuracy of the goto's throughout the session. If you have the scope permanently set up in an observatory the saved settings don't need clearing afterwards. There is also an active EQMOD user group https://groups.io/g/EQMOD which is well worth joining

To be honest whilst the tools like a Hotech laser and a Cheshire are not required to collimate a scope, having them makes the job so much easier. Also with this being one of the more frequently discussed topics on the forum, collimating a scope should now no longer be the dark science it is always claimed to be !

One thing that is always mentioned is security. Having a 2.2m dome in your garden makes people curious, and most people, even the lowlife opportunistic youth recognises the shape and makes a connection with telescopes.... When I was building my observatory all the people walking past on their way to the allotments behind us who asked what I was building were told "a shed to store the garden tools". Only the neighbours who have seen it in operation know exactly what its function is.

Which is why I went into imaging rather than visual This was form the middle of a town with an 8" 200P and a Canon 400D DSLR.... I was targeting the flame nebula, but the horsehead can be seen right at the edge

If the scope can't be locked into place and it was a recent purchase then contact the shop from where it was purchased and seek a replacement rather than throw more money trying to fix it. And any drilling of holes will invalidate your warranty. It's a cheap telescope... it seems to rely on how tight you turn a locking knob, which in itself could be an issue if that has been overtightened.

Come back sodium lighting .... at least you could easily filter that out. Any glow caused by modern LED stuff is a nightmare to try and filter given the wide and varied spectrum !!

Just out of interest, if you stacked those same 150 images in deep sky stacker would it take longer or be quicker ?, thus showing that it's how the application is written to take advantage of multiple cores, or hyperthreading

The point I was trying to make was that there is no standard by which to benchmark. An image of the orion nebula may contain more data than say a globular cluster, an image of the same object taken on a dedicated astro camera may have more data or more pixels than a Canon 400d.... The ONLY way to benchmark a system would be to process the same image using the same software and software settings. I agree that for any application that is written to use multiple cores, a processor with a high core count will give more performance, but equally the various levels of cache on the processor can make a difference - it all depends on how the application is written. Graphics cards IMO are not that critical, mainly because the final result is displayed after processing, unlike a game where refresh rates and fps are the key factors

Can't speak for the latest gen Ryzen (which on most reviews have blown team blue out of the water), but investing in a decent main board that supports the latest generation of Nvme drives is a key factor. Don't cheap out on the Nvme drive either - The Samsung Evo Pro, whilst a tad pricey is blisteringly fast. My system is a 1st Gen Ryzen 5 1500x (4 core 8 threads) built just over three years ago. Based on a Asus 370X mainboard, 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 RAM, and a Samsung 960 Pro Nvme system drive. Graphics is an RX550 gaming, but as I don't play games I don't really need the latest Nvida / AMD graphics cards costing a grand. Storage is a 500GB SSD for programs (the Nvme is set as the system drive) and two mechanical drives totalling 3TB for file storage. The thing boots in a blink of an eye, can edit and render 4K HDR video footage without dropped frames, and stacking 40 x 5min RAW subs taken with my D400, plus 40 darks of the same in DSS takes less time than boiling the kettle The thing is though, all the benchmarking in the world is a tad irrelevant as processing images will vary from one user to another. Benchmarking games is one thing as the game is standardised and thus can be used to compare performance. Also, whilst it's nice having lots of horsepower, you often will never use it to its full potential as most of the time we tend to use our PCs for browsing and sending e-mail

Gordon's post really just about sums things up. The prices I quoted above for the ROR does include installation and erection so you wouldn't have to worry about having to assemble a flat pack kit, as would be the case with the dome. Again, you could contract a builder to lay the base, install ducting and pre-fit the electrics prior to delivery, and then come back and erect it for you, but this could be upwards of three days labour, costing £500 or more. I built my own ROR - OK whilst I had help from a neighbour who had access to a mini digger for the foundations, the rest was done over the course of a few months. The bulk of construction was a week of long days tagged onto a bank holiday. It wasn't hard... just cutting stud work to length and then screwing it together to make a frame. It's 2m wide x 4.8m long and has an office / warme room / workshop at one end. - The total cost, £2200, of which £1850 was actual materials, the difference being tool hire costs and payment to my son who bagged up all the spoil for me. - I think if you read through all DIY builds that follow similar build mythology this cost is about average. So you can see a huge saving can be made by going down the DIY route. Of course if you really have money to throw at this, you could contract a builder to design and build an observatory to your requirements. Probably the most expensive option, but other than consultation you would have very little to do other than power up and start using it once completed

Well I've just tested the "official" Orion firmware uploader application to see if it could return the firmware version of an 16F886 programmed with the SW HEQ5 code and it correctly returned the firmware version, so that does confirm the Orion software uses the same SW protocols. So flashing the PICs with the 209 code used on the previous MC004 boards will work.

Ahhh right. I would need to do some research to confirm if the 209 firmware used in the SW badged version is the same (which I'm 99% confident it is) for the Orion scope, but I do have the ability (as mentioned above) to reprogram two new PICs and replace the old ones, so if you want to give this a try drop me a PM for more details. So far there have been four happy SGL members who's telescopes have had a new lease of life If you have a read of the thread I linked to, you will see that the first "customer" was faced with the fact that some of these boards have since been upgraded and the cost of having to replace both boards and not knowing if there was a physical compatibility meant that a repair really was his only option. Drop me a PM if you want me to try a repair.

I think that most decent retailers can provide that level of service, but because we are a week away from Christmas, short supply and a lot of suppliers maybe on skeleton staff due to Covid... was why I made that suggestion. I wasn't inferring that mails were being ignored

When the firmware rollback was done, did the PC application report 100% update for both MCU1 and MCU2 ?

Now I'm really confused (easily done though !) Peter, I'm not familiar with the internals of your scope, but from what I can gather they have replaced the main board which the motors plug into (there could be one board with the AZ board being just a bare board with connectors, or you may have an MC003 for each axis), replaced the PSU, and replaced the handset but you get the same error message of no communications between the handset and the mount..... but you have been able to update / roll back the firmware on the motor board?? - The firmware update application will normally ping the command through to the main board to request it's current version when the request is sent. If it returns the version of firmware back to the PC application, and you have then been able to upload the image file to the motor board via the handset and essentially roll the firmware back then this proves the communications on the mainboard, and the handset are fine. If the PICs had been damaged, or the comport on the handset was inoperative you would not have been able to do this

I hope you have deep pockets then..... Pulsar are recognised as being the company to turn to for domed home observatories. There are two variants, 2.2m and 2.7m. A 2.2m full height dome (ie the the dome and the circular walled section) is £3495. The motorised drive for the dome is an additional £1295, and if you want to automate that fully and include the shutter drive, add on another £1295, so a shade over £6000. Add to that the cost of the base, and pier and I doubt you would see much change from £7K if you include the cost of having electricity supplied (last thing you want is the laptop to shut down due to low battery !). If you wanted a larger 2.7m model, add another £1300 to the cost. https://www.pulsarastro.com/pulsar-22m-full-height-dome-13-p.asp For an off the shelf and installed ROR observatory you're looking for around £4100 for an 8' x 8' (approx 2.4m x 2.4m) which includes 2 days labour for installation but exclude delivery. The cost of a suitable concrete base should also be added to the cost, along with the provisions for the electrics. So again, probably not much change out of £5.5 - £6K if you include the optional electric roof, internal wall cladding, flooring and any coloured roof tiles. https://www.homeobservatoryuk.com/?p=home Just want to add, that I'm in no way endorsing any of the above, and can not vouch for their suitability. Just started the task of researching your options for you

This is on the assumption that the microcontrollers have not been damaged and the handset can establish communications with them in the first place.. As the OP had a new mainboard replaced then in theory there should be no problem with the board, so if when the handset is connected to a PC via the correct cable and the firmware loader application manages to communicate with the mainboard through the handset then there is a chance that reloading the firmware would work. If however the handset is faulty it still may not see the motor board and thus the OP won't be able to try this.

Personally given the shortage of astro gear I would be spending an afternoon on the phone ringing round making enquiries rather than relying on someone monitoring a mailbox.

There are plenty of DIY observatory builds, from simple shed conversions, domes, through to custom designed and purpose built buildings. Spend a few days / weeks browsing through them to see what was involved, the pitfalls and the pros and cons. No one design fits all. Also compare costs. Sometimes a custom self build might give you more observatory than an off the shelf option. I would suggest visiting one of the manufacturer / resellers, but with Covid and recent restrictions that would rule out such activities, especially if you are in the new T4 zone ! Also consider how you might end up operating the observatory. Initially I built a "warm" room which worked fine, but now, having opened up the observatory, just remote desktop into the PC in the observatory from the main PC in the lounge and do all my imaging from the warmth of the living room. A webcam allows me to keep an eye on the scopes orientation. I would not be able to do this with a dome unless the dome was motorised as I would be running up the garden frequently to move the dome to maintain that open section of sky. If you have neighbors close to your house then try and predict a "what if" future proofing into the location of the observatory and its design. When I built my observatory we had an elderly couple living next door who seldom went out after dark, and would retire to bed before 10pm. They moved out to a care home and the council have the house to a new couple.... the garden is full of fairy lights and there is a 300w flood light that often gets triggered by their cats which can naturally spoil imaging. If I have the dropdown side of the observatory in the up position it gives me some degree of shielding, but limits the southerly view.

Wow, that is different...and uses an ARM Cortex processor rather than a Microchip PIC. It was also listed a good £20 cheaper than the boards listed at Rothervalley / FLO etc I would have to do some research to check compatibility as there is only one firmware file for the HEQ5 on the Skywatcher website and that's for an 16F886. I wouldn't try and upload any firmware to the new board just in case... if it ain't broke don't fix it Drop me a PM when you are able to send on the Old board and I'll sort out a payment to cover the cost of P&P etc.

Having repaired four SW goto motor boards I think what's happened is that the upgrade has corrupted the code in the micro-controller, and now it's impossible to reload the original firmware back. However, if you have already had a new main board swapped out then that would / should have resolved the problem. I would have thought that Synta would have standardise the parts used in their mounts and the fact that the firmware version for the XT10g is listed as the 209 version, the same for the SW flexitube and standard Dobs would suggest that the MC boards are indeed the same. The only thing that they didn't replace was the handset.... so it could be that the handset is the issue. As mentioned, I've repaired four motor control boards (as documented here https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/351363-any-ideas-on-repairing-a-slightly-blown-motor-board/ ) but as you have already tried a replacement board, flashing two more PICs and replacing them probably won't resolve the issue. I would be inclined to see if the handset is functional, especially if you are intending to build an Arduino based controller that still requires the handset to be used (I'm not familiar with any arduino unit that has the database coded into it). Most Synta mounts use stepper motors, NEMA 12 and 17 are common. Just remove one and check the dimensions or any markings

So getting the non goto version and purchase the GOTO upgrade for £322 would be one possible way