RayD

Mine is miniline Kev and it works a treat. It's only a small area to deal with so is ample as far as capacity goes.

Someone gave me this great advice whilst building mine ?

Great job, Kev. Looks really tidy and is going to last a very long time. Know the feeling with the injury, much blood was spilled during my build, but it is soon forgotten when the roof rolls back and you just image away. Really enjoying sharing your build with you.

Nice one, Kev. Big moment when the roof goes on. As I said earlier, it is pretty heavy, and imagine that with snow on also, so make sure you go big enough with the OSB, and get all those joints on the joists. Looking forward to seeing it coming on.

That's where I got mine, Kev. Really good service, no issues with them at all.

Looking positively delightful, Kev. As the rolling roof is going over the fixed one, and you need to make sure all the parts of the former clear the latter, my view would be to complete the fixed roof first, but of course I can understand your desire to jump on the the rolling roof ASAP, I was the same.

Depending on my main/guide scope/camera combination, I have a ratio of anything between 1:1.37 and 1:5.43 and I don't seem to struggle with guiding or, more accurately, poor images related to guiding as a result of the higher figure. There has been a couple of interesting posts on CN about this, and the generally agreed consensus appeared to be a maximum figure of 1:10, with several people noting successful guiding at around this, but with a target figure of 1:4. However, I think much also depends on your mount and software, and the ability to smooth out corrections etc. From my images I would say 1:5 is absolutely fine, with higher figures increasingly perhaps needing a little more care and attention in other areas.

I must admit I never use the seeing function. Like you say, if it is clear I image, I just work around the seeing and find out how bad it is when I start guiding. I certainly wouldn't choose to not image when it's clear because the seeing is bad. It's a great app.

I'm one of the few who has had a scope rejected by Es. Not for the optics, but for a mechanical issue that meant it was not possible to achieve the required results. As such I have no hesitation in recommending it as a worthwhile service as I could have been chasing something that simply wasn't achievable.

having had a couple of my OTA's inspected by Es, and spoken with him on the phone a couple of times, the one thing I can categorically guarantee is that there would be no carelessly inflicted damage caused by him. He really does know his stuff, and is meticulous in how he goes about things. Exactly the same goes for FLO. I'm sure if there was damage caused, which is highly unlikely, the OTA simply wouldn't be shipped to you as new.

Yes that's what I do at the moment with SGP, Graham, via a small Samsung SSD. Problem for me is warranting the additional costs for all the processing bits when I won't use them. It's a very extensive package, but I wonder if the additional cost is due to the processing bits as I suppose I was hoping to find something spectacular which it did that I can't do with SGP. I would love to see this updated a bit (Hamza notes it was conceived in the 90's, and to me feels like it is still there a bit from a GUI perspective) and then split in to two separate options, with one being capture only, and another being the full package for those wanting all the processing bits.

I'm in the same boat, Mike. There is an awful lot of effort gone in to the processing side of the software, but as a user of PI and PS these would be sat there doing nothing. I don't process on my capture PC, as I'm sure is the case for very many imagers, so I'm not sure this is right model for me.

I just had it crash running simulators. I'll persevere with real stuff also.

I have looked Hamza but am trying to run the programme simultaneously also so I can get a feel of it. It is getting used to the different naming convention. Just one quick question if you don't mind, I see you have auto-focus options for time and for degrees of slew, but is there an option for temperature change i.e. perform auto-focus with every 1 degree of temperature change?

That's great news, thanks Hamza.

Thanks John you beat me to it Just be aware, and others too, because the plate solver is built in to this programme, the download is big (around 587MB from memory) so watch your data if you're limited.

Excellent, makes good sense.

Whilst evaluating I have been looking for an automated meridian flip procedure but can't find anything. This isn't to say it isn't there as I am currently using it connected but not live (in my workshop). Is there a fully automated meridian flip procedure or does this require user intervention?

Yes likewise I am actually currently evaluating it and whilst comprehensive, I am finding the layout not very intuitive and a bit dated in feel at the moment, but I'm happy to concede that this is probably just because it is new to me and unfamiliar. As noted by @AngryDonkey I think this type of post will go against the CoC for SGL so probably not allowed, but I think there are a few of us trialling it, so no doubt there will be some threads appearing soon enough.

No as @DaveS notes, it's a standard triplet so you would have to sort out the spacing behind the FR. I'm not sure about the image circle on these, but from experience I think TS are somewhat optimistic with their declared image circle, so I would be a little cautious. They are decent OTA's, so if the focal ratio is key for you then I suspect this is going to go high on the options list.

The TS stuff is ok, my 80mm one works fine, but it isn't just the price that makes this different to the Tak of course they are different designs. I like the Petzval design of my FSQ106 and, whilst my Esprit 100 is superb, it was a bit of a mission to get the spacing spot on to the FF when using it with the larger 16200 sensor. Have you considered the Esprit 120? For the money the Esprit range is right up there, and you don't often hear those of us with them complaining about them. A nice conundrum to have as they are all very nice.

Ah we are going off at all angles here. Rodd I'll leave Chris to help you as I think he has more experience of this issue than me, so I am out of other suggestions. Hope you get it sorted anyway and look forward to the images when it is

Unless you are using a FR on each it shouldn't make any difference. Once focused your OAG "package" will work. Once you introduce a FR you need the focal plane of both cameras to be a set distance behind that FR, irrespective of focus. If you take your "package" off your scope with say a Skywatcher FR needing 55mm spacing, and put it on a scope with a TS FR fitted that needs 116mm to work, well it won't, you'll need a new spacer, no matter what you do with the focus wheel. The problem then is that your focal plane can be so far back that you can't wind the focuser in enough to actually get focus. I think your circumstances have meant that you haven't encountered this, which is great, but in Rodds case we don't know what the spacing requirement is for the FR, and that's what I'm trying to find out to see where the spacers that he has need to go.

Ahhhhh ok, it's becoming clearer. Are they custom ones or the standard ones which came with the OAG? I didn't mean screw them together, I meant one in between the OAG and FW, and then another between the FW and the FR. The latter spaces your OAG at a point where you can get focus with it, and the one between the OAG and FW will set you main camera sensor at the optimum distance for your FR to work.

Ok thanks Rodd. The thing is you have 2 spacers, but we don't know which one goes where. Yes you are correct in that your camera will screw directly to the filter wheel, but unusually you will almost certainly need a spacer between the OAG and FW. What we need to know is what the spacing requirement is between the FR and the camera sensor for your FR when fitted to your TOA. Once we know that we can work out which spacer will go where, as you may need to use both.