scotty38

I'm pretty sure I've seen this before but cannot recall what the issue was. Can you share the wbpp settings and maybe some files to try?

It should only solve the reference frame(s) determined in the previous step though

Are you saying the registered image is the one at the top and all the lights as per the bottom one? If none of that is correct I'm assuming you have lights with differing views that have resulted in the master looking different to the other filters. Unless I'm completely missing what you're asking, sorry.

The masterbias won't make a difference as it's not being used even if you add it to the files as it's already taken care of in your other masters. What does the 90s masterflat look like on its own and do you have the full wbpp log?

3 minutes ago, John said:

Sorry, I missed this post just now. I agree - different approach depending on the aperture for the Askar Apo's. I was blinded by the lure of the "big ones" 🙄

 

Same here as I’ve been looking at options for a while including the 120 and Esprit 120  but I think the 140 has just nipped into the number 1 spot 😀

Just now, John said:

Certainly telescopic (with a lock) on the LZOS refractors. I've been concentrating on the 140 and 185 Askar Apo's and they have a telescopic extension but looking at the details again it looks as if the 120mm and 103 have a screw in extension section. 

Ok thanks again so could/should be ok and yep the 103/120 askars are screw in

17 minutes ago, John said:

APM/LZOS refractors have used a similar approach for years. My LZOS 130 is 17 years old and has an extension tube at the focuser end. No signs of droop with it even with a 2 inch diagonal plus 21mm Ethos installed. The Askar approach looks even better engineered than the APM/LZOS one I think.

 

Ok that’s good to hear but definitely this telescopic arrangement rather than screw in?

18 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Retractable, I thought it screwed on and off….🤔

It does on the 103 and 120 but the 140 and 185 have this different approach 

Any thoughts on the retractable tube being a tilt magnet at all?

3 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

First light for the 185 - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057654241164

Looks OK to me. BTW, listed as $13k in the US.

Oh, that'll knock the shine off....

13 hours ago, Stuart1971 said:

Can someone explain why these scopes are so reasonably priced, compared to other comparable triplets, especially other triplets in the Askar range such as the PHQ versions, as in my mind you get what you pay for with a scope and these must be a lot cheaper for a reason….or no one would ever buy there higher priced scopes, so where is the compromise here…?? 
sorry to be a cinic…

The PHQ is a quad rather than a triplet but still a reasonable question as adding the flattener to the 140 only takes you to £2400 versus £4000 for the 130PHQ.

On 11/11/2023 at 11:41, Dunc78 said:

Hello again! Just trying to get to grips with NINA, when doing the 3 point polar align, it slews to the first target ok then keeps going onto the next one same direction it then hits the mount limits iv safely set in eqmod. Can Nina be adjusted so this doesn't happen? 

Yes, if you go to the TPPA panel in the imaging tab you can change the settings and also in the TPPA plugin page. I had to do the same for the same reasons.

or do the sticky pad and ty-wrap thing as suggested earlier, no "bodging" required and completely reversible.

8 hours ago, Adam J said:

Honestly the 115/800 is a known good objective and so why take a gamble on a new design? 

To be fair I'm not really planning on a gamble as I'm in no rush or anything anyway. The main point of me asking was just this; to get opinions so thanks for the reminder will take another look at other things. This caught my eye with it being new I guess.

10 minutes ago, Nik271 said:

At F7 the objective will need to be 70mm forward in the tube so that the light cone decreases from 120mm to 110mm to fit the diameter of the main tube without vignetting. I expect there is a conical opening of the tube at the objective end, but the lense hood is hiding it in the pictures.

 

Yep exactly what I've read elsewhere as like @Stuart1971 said it seemed a bit odd at first glance.

Hi all, There probably aren't many scopes I've not been umming and ahhing about, the Esprit 120 being one of them, but now the Askar appears. I searched but didn't find anything and whilst I appreciate that probably nobody has one, any thoughts etc etc as it's mighty tempting given its price?

Askar 120mm APO Triplet Refractor | First Light Optics

8 minutes ago, WolfieGlos said:

Thanks scotty. I have ASTAP and NINA, and do use it to platesolve images when I'm not sure if the target is correct, but not to align. I still use Stellarium to move the mount though, does NINA allow this?

I didn't get on with TPPA, so went back to my manual method from the star adventurer days.

As I couldn't focus.....I couldn't plate solve, and as I couldn't plate solve......I couldn't find a target! I suddenly feel like such a rookie again haha.

Regarding your first point then if by align you mean Polar Align then yes you can use NINA but it uses the TPPA plugin that you didn't get on with.

If it's to centre a target the once polar alignment is done then you can enter the coordinates of any target and then NINA will slew to and centre it by plate solving.

Agreed you'll need to be broadly in focus first so what I would do is point roughly at Polaris and then start taking the 1 second exposures and manually focus from there, tbh you could point anywhere really but once focussed you can then start polar aligning etc.

Forgot to ask, what was it with TPPA you didn't like, maybe we can help there. In my opinion it's a great tool and since I started using it I've not used the iPolar once....

If you're using NINA then install ASTAP and then have NINA run platesolving to align things. You can also use the TPPA plugin to polar align if you wish.

For focus just loop, say, 1 second images and adjust focus manually until you're happy.

41 minutes ago, Budgie1 said:

It's not just you. It's a bit annoying and I can't see the reasoning behind it TBH. 😕 

This the reasoning and I quote:

Platform-Independent Message Boxes

Message boxes are now platform-independent and uniformly implemented on all supported operating systems. One of the most noticeable changes is in the order of the Yes/No and OK/Cancel buttons. These buttons are now placed so that the least potentially dangerous button is always located first (leftmost position) and is the dialog's default button, that is, the action executed by hitting Enter.

For example, in a message box asking, "The image has been modified. Do you really want to close it?" the order of buttons would be No, Yes. For a question like "Do you want to save the changes?" the order would be Yes, No. Note that this can be contradictory with platform-specific customary settings. Did we mention that PixInsight doesn't necessarily follow platform customary settings?

Yep, I used to do this with my 294mc OSC and alternated between a UV/IR and l-extreme

Do you have the gaia databases installed locally and image solver configured to use them?

Just a string of christmas tree fairy leds in mine...

Oh and I'm going to assume (as I haven't checked) that the reason the STF is not in history is due to the fact it doesn't actually make any file changes.

If I have an image with an STF applied and close STF then on opening STF again it displays the settings back again. If you have "Track View" enabled it just applies the settings to the STF screen for each image you select

I did read somewhere else about the same message (different app) and a suggestion was checking the permissions of the application directory under Program Files. If not already try changing to full access and see if it helps