NEW Celestron CGX Mount

[iapa]

I watched that earlier this evening, and poster noted that his precious results were the result of incorrect settings in PHD2 which made his previous results appear much better that they actually were.

Quote 'the smart people said uh uh no way'

The settings used on the his previous post were the result of incorrect settings in PHD2 which resulted in 'apparent' excellent guiding.

It's worth following these things through right to the end as a problem with 'social media' is people often post first thoughts. I know, I used to run a 'bulletin board' in the days before the internet 

[FLO]

6 minutes ago, iapa said:

It's worth following these things through right to the end as a problem with 'social media' is people often post first thoughts. I know, I used to run a 'bulletin board' in the days before the internet 

Indeed they often do 

Steve 

[SteveMcHarg]

good point let's wait for the final outcome, I hope it gets better ! Someone also returned they're mount and we're waiting for that to be tested. 

[iapa]

14 minutes ago, FLO said:

Indeed they often do 

Steve 

Of course based on that experience I am not guilty of that

Should you not be in bed ensuring that you are fit to cover  those with thel lurgy  course 

[iapa]

2 minutes ago, SteveMcHarg said:

good point let's wait for the final outcome, I hope it gets better ! Someone also returned they're mount and we're waiting for that to be tested. 

Thing is, 99% of people who are happy with something don't post.

1099% (yes i mean 1099%) of people who report an issue (in any field not just astronomy) never say if a reported issue was resolved, 0.0000000001 % relate the solution.

You have to be very pragmatic about YouTube 'reports' and take a coupe of lbs of salt with them

Personally, I was building up the saving to get one any way :), until I saw the CGX-L, so, I now save for longer.

[SteveMcHarg]

Omg these are worrying times for the cgx release. After further reading it appears multiple issues have been recorded and cloudy nights have frozen some of the threads ! One user stated-

Also...the troubles just keep rolling in. I think it clear the CGX has switches problems. bad manufacture batch?

Maybe it's just teething issues ?? I do recall the cgem having a few such issues in the beginning ?? 

Heres a link to a few problems within one thread which Celestron claims to have resolved but the user still has issues!

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/561635-celestron-cgx-review-problem/

think I'll just get the new neq6 ironically owned by the same company ! 

[Grant]

6 minutes ago, SteveMcHarg said:

Omg these are worrying times for the cgx release. After further reading it appears multiple issues have been recorded and cloudy nights have frozen some of the threads ! One user stated-

Also...the troubles just keep rolling in. I think it clear the CGX has switches problems. bad manufacture batch?

Maybe it's just teething issues ?? I do recall the cgem having a few such issues in the beginning ?? 

Heres a link to a few problems within one thread which Celestron claims to have resolved but the user still has issues!

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/561635-celestron-cgx-review-problem/

think I'll just get the new neq6 ironically owned by the same company ! 

Seriously are you reading the same things I am? I've read all those threads on Cloudy Nights and once you take away the repetition it looks like three people have had issues - two are now sorted and happy and the third might not even be an issue? The vast majority of actual owners are reporting very favourable results?

[RayD]

We all mull over whether 0.5m3 of concrete is enough to provide a secure base for a fixed pier, but this guys "results" are based on sessions with a C14 mounted on a buggy?

To me this looks like a pretty well thought out and built mount within its target area and price bracket, and certainly don't see anything of concern.  Surely if there was major or multiple issues as you seem to feel, this would be reported in droves, but this is just one guy with a buggy mounted heavy rig noting what he is seeing with his set-up.

As Steve has rightly noted, just wait and see what the majority of feedback provides, as one-off unusually mounted rigs like this one are hardly a gauge for any mount.

[ollypenrice]

I'd certainly like to see this given a chance. Some good thinking has gone into the design. Belt primary drive is great and, being designed in from the off, it looks substantial and logically located. The spring loading of worm drives has to be done correctly but it is a solution adopted by Astro Physics and 10 Micron. When it is properly done it's a first class solution.

Maybe it's some innate dyslexia of mine but Celestron's insistence on naming things in a random mixture of 'x,' 'c,' and 'g' leaves me with an instant headache!! I always feel I've just been given an anagram to solve. However, I'd have thought that there was a distinct gap in the market around this point. I hope the mount performs to the full extent of its thoughtful design. 

Olly

[SteveMcHarg]

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/566587-celestron-cgx-updated-test-and-review/#entry7705869

 

looking good to me ?

[FLO]

3 minutes ago, SteveMcHarg said:

looking good to me ?

What have I missed? (FLO is a British company). 

Steve 

[FLO]

30 minutes ago, SteveMcHarg said:

looking good to me ?

 

25 minutes ago, FLO said:

What have I missed? (FLO is a British company). 

Steve 

Ah, I see. There wasn't anything wrong with his mount. Jolly good 

"In summary, I am EXTREMELY happy with the CGX and would highly recommend it NOW!  No need to wait for new revisions or firmware upgrades."

[SteveMcHarg]

4 hours ago, FLO said:

 

Ah, I see. There wasn't anything wrong with his mount. Jolly good 

"In summary, I am EXTREMELY happy with the CGX and would highly recommend it NOW!  No need to wait for new revisions or firmware upgrades."

Yep it's looking better. I panicked when I seen the bad review oooops ! Might buy it now ?