Upgrading from Skyscan V2 to V3, worth it for visual use?

[GazOC]

What exactly do you get on the upgrade? I know its firmware is updateable and its has a 'sync' function to increase the accuracy but is there anything else that would interest a purely visual user? Have they 'fixed' the double star catalouge?

[George]

EQmod is far cheaper, and no more trailing wires at the eyepiece, I use a cordless rumblepad

[Kai]

Correct me if im wrong but you need to have Pc control for Eqmod dont you ??

[GazOC]

Thats what puts me off it, even with dark adaption turned on the screen is too bright for me.

[cygnusx1]

Personally i've found the Sync function actually makes things worse!

The problem with Skyscan is that you can only do a 3 star alignment, no additional calibration stars to improve the accuracy like Celestron. :nono:

I find it a nuisance to slew to an object and find it out of my FOV due to the inaccuracy of the alignment model.

And yes, I am polar aligned.

[Kai]

When i am setting up Skyscan i use my C8 and a 9mm eyepiece.

This puts objects on my CCD chip 90% of the time no problems.I think this equates to a 6mm eyepiece :shock:,I can live with that .

Visually i think its more about wether i can recognise the object rather than the accuracy.

[cygnusx1]

When i am setting up Skyscan i use my C8 and a 9mm eyepiece.

This puts objects on my CCD chip 90% of the time no problems.I think this equates to a 6mm eyepiece :shock:,I can live with that .

Visually i think its more about wether i can recognise the object rather than the accuracy.

Kai the problem is, for imaging, esp @ long f/l, you need to get the slew v accurate and the olbject centred in the fov.

I find even after aligning with a 11mm ep on my C9.25, that slewing to objects far from the alignment stars causes the object to be misplaced quite large amounts from the centre of fov.

Not sure if its the alignment stars or a limitation of the Skyscan alignment model. The latter i would have thought.

[Kai]

When i am setting up Skyscan i use my C8 and a 9mm eyepiece.

This puts objects on my CCD chip 90% of the time no problems.I think this equates to a 6mm eyepiece :shock:,I can live with that .

Visually i think its more about wether i can recognise the object rather than the accuracy.

Kai the problem is, for imaging, esp @ long f/l, you need to get the slew v accurate and the olbject centred in the fov.

Thats why i use my C8 (F/l 2000mm) with the 9mm that gives me 222x

All i can say is that i must have a one off mount as i do not seem to have the problems others have.

[cygnusx1]

Kai the problem is, for imaging, esp @ long f/l, you need to get the slew v accurate and the olbject centred in the fov.

Thats why i use my C8 (F/l 2000mm) with the 9mm that gives me 222x

All i can say is that i must have a one off mount as i do not seem to have the problems others have.

And i use my 11mm on my C9.25 = x213.

The tracking is excellent, but as i said most nights the slews are unacceptably off target.

Yes, perhaps your mount is one of the ones that made it through QA.

I always wondered about mine from the start.

[daz]

The problem with Skyscan is that you can only do a 3 star alignment, no additional calibration stars to improve the accuracy like Celestron

Erm, there is actually Kev. If you Escape back to the top menu, and hold down Escape for a couple of seconds, you can sync on an object

[James]

I didn't know that... does it replace any of the three alignment stars or is it a 'bonus'...?

James

[cygnusx1]

The problem with Skyscan is that you can only do a 3 star alignment, no additional calibration stars to improve the accuracy like Celestron

Erm, there is actually Kev. If you Escape back to the top menu, and hold down Escape for a couple of seconds, you can sync on an object

Err Daz, go back ^^^^ and read my comment about the sync function.

[daz]

Whoops! Sorry Kev - missed that line!! Ahem!

I've actually found it useful myself, but horses for courses!!

James - AFAIK, its a bonus! Its supposed to increase accuracy...........!

[James]

OK, next time I'm out I'll see what happens!

James

[GazOC]

On most systems the 'sync' function is supposed to increase accuracy in the area near the star used...

[Kai]

I have used it a couple of times and it performed as expected,but as im imaging mostly i am not scanning arond the synced area.

[NickH]

Okay...

Synscan V3 handboxes have many +_ points, flash upgrade, new features, more stuff etc etc

But

Whoever designed the IC's in them was a monkey... they are not in any way temperature tolerant. Stick one under sustained -5 to -10c temperatures and they lock up (some suggestion that they may have fixed this on newer models). Proof, I know mine did, and I know 4 others than do, and they added "temperature sensing" to one of the firmware builds, proving that the IC's have a temp sense in them, which implies either thay are being vey nice and giving you a reference for your dark frames (which is unlikely as the sensor would also pick up ambient heat from your hand/the electronics), or they knew about the problem from day 1...

Secondly, PAE, whilst neat, can in some cases cause a problem with certain firmeare builds they have put out. V3.12 being a corker. The latest 3.21 firmware when you PAE on Mars, it says "resyncing to Jupiter" and there are a few other howling bugs...summary, 21 OS updates, and they still get it wrong. Version 3.01 was so bad, that if you used the arrow keys it stopped the mount from moving in RA...literally stopped it.. Love to meet the test team on this product, see how many Mcdonalds badges they have..

So...yes V3 handboxes have some very very good points, but also some rather silly ones...

EQmod is great if you want to always have a laptop to hand, or have a permanent setup for sure, but all I would like them to do is write a robust and solid firmware build, and not force me to clamp a telrad heater pad to the back of the handbox in winter to ensure it works all night

Pointing accuracy etc on the mount is exceptional though, and it autoguides a treat

[James]

In the Synscan manual is see the following:

The three star alignment methods provide alignment adequate for any visual observing purpose. For

applications that require extra high precision in a particular part of the sky, the SynScanTM provides a

Pointing Accuracy Enhancement (PAE) function to further improve the accuracy. The PAE can be

performed in up to 85 zones to cover the whole sky. The area(s) where the chosen alignment star(s) is located

should be already mapped out accurately by the SynScanTM. Further accuracy enhancement is not necessary.

The following blah blah....

Under that is the bit that Daz mentioned of using the ESC key. Its the sentence I've highlighted that intrigues me - it suggests I could use Sync (or PAE as it calls it) on lots of stars should I feel inclined. Roll on the next clear night please...

James

[GazOC]

TBH I've always found a half decent polar alignment and the one star alignment enough for visual use. I was playing with my DSI/ SCT at f3.3 a couple of weeks ago and most objects were still put on the chip with this method.