Feature suggestion for Autoslew

[nakbrooks]

I think the problem faced by ASA is that they are trying to package software originally developed for professional and semi-professional users for the broader hobbyist market. The two audiences require a totally different philosophy.

 

Professionals are looking for fast evolution of the product, with features added as soon as they are developed. They are willing to do their own debugging and they can live with poor documentation because they have the technical skills needed.

 

The hobbyist requires a shrink wrapped product that works out of the box with little or no tweaking and is supported by extensive up to date documentation and support.

 

If ASA wish to focus on the professional and semi-professional market then they must make this clear in their marketing so that customers are not misled into thinking they can use the software without the pre-requisite skills.

 

If ASA wishes to also market it's products to the hobbyist they need to invest in the shrink-wrapped product and proper support. It is part of the investment they must make in return for the higher sales they wish to achieve from the wider amateur market. Possibly ASA has underestimated the resources required to do this and are caught between the competing demands of their two customer bases, and do not have the volume of sales to generate the revenue to fully support both.

 

Probably there need to be two versions of the software:

 

1). A "standard" version, basically a simplified Autoslew, which meets the needs of the typical amateur, is stable (max one release per year) and comes complete with documentation, wizards, videos, etc.

 

2). A "professional" version which comprises the full suite of software, is quite possibly open source, and is supported with developer toolkits to enable professionals to integrate it with 3rd party h/w & s/w.

 

If an amateur wants to use the professional version then caveat emptor.

 

The difference in philosophy is akin to the Unix and Windows markets. Unix geeks think it is normal to have to compile the operating system before it will work (but they can tune it to exactly meet their needs); Windows users think that is madness - they aren't interested in operating systems, they just want to use their computer.

 

As a further thought, as the hardware is useless without the software, either the software should be open source or some escrow arrangements should be in place for the benefit of a user group. Otherwise if (God forbid) anything happened to Dr. Keller or ASA itself our investment in ASA hardware would soon become valueless.

 

Nigel

[john32712]

To all commenting here...

 

If you have an "extremely simple setup" and do not utilize advance features, including sequence, why comment and say the situation is fine? If you want to say you are stupid or ignorant, that is your choice to do. My choice would be to say the quality of documentation and manuals are poor and I do not have the desire to waste large amounts of time, especially when simply documentation/communication can clear so much up. The statements made are extremely self-defeating to us who want a reasonable and consistent advancement of the software, communication, and documentation. When you can read the countless comments of constructive criticism and then say your happy just because it does not effect you, is very foolish. There has been zero feedback from ASA on any issues, how can you say you're really happy?

 

Nigel, Lukas, Christian, and Ian have all made very valid points! WE need to stay focused on the issues here. We can all speculate why all these problems exists, but the point is....they do exist and they are not getting corrected in a reasonable fashion.

 

Can I at least get some agreement that we need the following improvements and a corporate communication from ASA letting us know something?

1. Updated and concise documentation for us and future potential mount owners

2. Reasonable software updates with good communication about future releases and direction

3

[john32712]

Continuation of above...

 

3. A consolidation of Autoslew and Sequence into "one simple mount control package". 

4. Improved communication between ASA and its mount owners

 

Anything else?

 

I would like to see a petition signed by all of us and delivered to ASA with a request for full disclosure on all the questions which have been posed. If things are going to continue in this direction and not change, I would like to know now. I will then sell my mount and save myself a lot of grief.

 

Finally, it is possible to correct everyone of these issues, then we would have a truly spectacular product. It is not up to us to make those corrections, that belongs to ASA.

[lukepower]

And still no comment from ASA...

 

Well, this is maybe the worst of this story...

[john32712]

Absolutely Lukas!

I don't want to come off harsh or disrespectful, but we have some problems to fix here.... I think ASA has made a great product (mechanically), with improved software/communication/documentation we would have the best of the best!

[lukepower]

Hm, alright,

I tested my tweaked version of Sequence, but had some (minor?) bugs to sort out and I was simply too tired to catch them in the night. I am confident that I got them, but is there anybody with an ASA mount and a clear sky willing to help me a second? It's just a matter of running a console application, which basically does an LPT run.

So what would be needed is:

• an ASA mount
• running Autoslew
• Maximdl
• and Pinpoint

The procedure would be the same as using the LPT function in Sequence:

1. Startup everything, get ready for imaging
2. Slew to your target (doesn't really matter which one)
3. Run 'MLPT.exe'
4. Afterwards, check if there was any error, there will be a logfile called "MLPTlog.txt" in the same directory as the app. If everything went smoothly, Autoslew will now have loaded an LPT file (so it will be switched to that mode), and your imaging can proceed smoothly.

So, anybody willing to do this job?

 

Thanks

[admin]

Hello,

 

First of all, thank you for all your comments. I will talk to Egon Döberl, the CEO of ASA, about your concerns. Regarding the software development. I have opened to threads to report actual bugs in the current beta of Autoslew and Sequenz. The plan is to ask Philipp to remove them, to roll out a corrected version for testing and then to roll out a new stable version for all users. The new Autoslew Version is different in several parts eg. there is no need to tell Autoslew the correct side of peer so it currently it makes no sense to create a new manual. If you have actual bugs please post them into the two threads as soon as possible.

 

Regarding ASA Support and this forum. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, if someone need support please contact ASA directly. This forum is mainly for user 2 user help, which is often very effective and helpful but if you don't find help here you have to contact ASA directly. The support team is not reading this forum every day.

 

Please send them an email to: support@astrosysteme.at or give them a call. Dietmar Weinzinger and Wolfgang Grünner are very nice guys who try to help and solve every problem http://www.astrosysteme.at/eng/team.html

 

 

Best regards,

Michael

[john32712]

Michael,

 

Thank you for finally responding!

 

I don't believe there is a misunderstanding here and most people understand they can email ASA for support.  However, if you quickly scan through the forum, you realize the issues are not of the type which can be resolved from your emailed support. They require software updates which have not been achieved. Per your example, telling Autoslew the correct side of the pier....  Honestly I feel the frustration is due to how slow these upgrades are occurring. Also, no indication from the ASA management team of what to expect and more importantly when to expect!

 

The manuals/literature are very outdated and not reflective of the current version of software. Pictures and menus do not represent accurately what you would see on the screen. I always tell my employees, "if your are going to criticize something be prepare to offer a solution before you say anything"! I can offer no solution for the software issues. I am not a programmer.  The request I would make would be to consolidate Autoslew and Sequence into one mount management package.

 

My suggestion for the user manual would be this: One of the very first pages should be a flowchart, this flow chart should have all the necessary steps required to setup and optimize your mount. For each step in the flowchart, a page number referencing that particular step in manual with explicit directions and what you should achieve in that particular step.

 

Thank you

[MarkS]

Hi all,

 

I've not really been following this thread closely for a while, and now scanning through it I must confess to being a little perplexed.

 

Am I the only user who runs DDM60, Autoslew, Sequence, The SkyX, and MaximDL without any problems? Admittedly I dont have any complications with domes and remote control, as my set-up is mobile and 'hands on', but using the AF routine in Autoslew, and Sequence Run to define the imaging with Meridian flip if necessary I have no operational issues.

 

But judging by this thread, I'm alone - am I missing something????

 

Regards,

Mark

[tommy_h]

Hi Mark

 

You are not alone!

 

I also use a DDM60 with Autoslew, Sequence, Maxim DL and Starry Nights without problems. I use only DSLRs, but even with a DSLR all works perfect.

Meridian Flip during Sequence Run or parking scope after Sequence Run, no problems.

But my setup is mobile too, no experiences with domes or remote controlling, so I cannot reconstruct the problems from other users.

 

Best regards

Thomas

[w0mbat]

Hi Mark and Thomas,

I am a new and very inexperienced user of ASA equipment. While I have as yet not had any significant problems with the function of the provided ASA software I am by no means experienced enough to judge more than the most basic levels of operation. I have only just purchased MaxIm DL and Pinpoint and I am just beginning to climb this part of the learning curve. The only software fault I have noticed so far is the well known one of MaxIm DL reporting the telescope is at park when it is not.

As a new user I am very dependent on comprehensive and up to date documentation. This has been my issue that has led to me joining this debate. Really the documentation is seriously out of date. Autoslew version 5.1.1.6 has been around for a long time but the manual is way behind that. Sequence is up to version 9 but the manual is for version 4 with an addendum for version 7! On top of that I find the organisation of the documentation difficult to follow. These issues may not be an issue for experienced astrophotographers but I am starting from zero! Frankly I believe that properly written documentation should not assume anything but the most basic prior knowledge. Also the documentation should cover every aspect of every function of the software. There are significant parts of Autoslew that are not even mentioned in the manual.

As I said I have just purchased MaxIm DL. I would put forward the manual for this complex software as at least a good attempt at comprehensive documentation. As far as I can see so far every single function is explained and every obscure term is elaborated. They have only just released a new version and the manual already reflects the changes. This is the way it should be!

As far as I can tell ASA makes some of the best hardware available. I think it is unfortunate both for new users and for ASA's reputation that the documentation is not up to the same standard.

I will leave more experienced and knowledgeable users to discuss any flaws in the software itself.

Regards,

Ian

[john32712]

Ian,

 

For some reason Mark, Tommy, and Waldemar are missing the point, which you made very eloquently. If they would read your post thoroughly rather than make the statement, "I am not having any problem", maybe they would understand...

 

Let me illustrate further, a version or two ago, Autoslew began generating " Assertion Debug" errors. I remember the day when I upgraded and I started receiving the errors. I made a comment about the error and the response back was, "I am not having that problem". Not very helpful at all (sound familiar). As time went on, more people began experiencing the error and it was eventually resolved.

 

It's almost like 'they" are being defensive rather than admitting, yes the documentation is horribly outdated, yes the software updates are virtually non-existent, and yes, there is room for improvement. No one is saying anything bad here except there is room for improvement and we would like the improvement to occur with more expediency. Just because you don't have a problem doesn't mean that it's non-existent.

 

Can you imagine being a new user trying to figure out why your monitor does not match what the manual shows? I guess we all need to pretend that it's ok?

 

The goal for all of us should be.... to get new users to buy ASA mounts and be as excited about this great technology as we are. This will insure continued improvement and as we all know, anything which does not continually improve, eventually becomes antiquated.

[MarkS]

Hi John,

 

I have no issue at all with the need for up-to-date documentation. It is clearly lagging way behind.

 

My point was simply that I'm not having problems. There is no burying heads in sand here. I was interested to find out if there were any people out there who share my experience. This in no way invalidates the problems that people are clearly experiencing.

 

I heartily agree with Ian's sentiments - they were written after my post, not before, as you seem to imply.

 

Incidentally, I am not an old hand at Astrophotography, and I took the plunge with the DDM60 on virtually no experience at all. The software I started with was AS 5.1.1.2, I think, and Sequence 0.0.0.9. The manuals were already out of date, but there was enough in them, plus some other good documentation on PA, Balance, and MLPT to allow me to get started. The learning curve wasn't easy, and it certainly would have benefited from better documentation. I sought help from ASA when I needed it - and usually got it in a timely fashion.

 

Most certainly, I'd like to see an up-to-date set of documentation. Perhaps when 5205 and 203 are resonably settled???? Let's all hope so. And the next problem will be keeping it current if developments proceed apace!

 

Regards,

Mark

[Waldemar]

John,

 

I totally agree with you about the manuals, the bad translation and the room for improvement of the software. Your last sentence says it all:

 

Quote: “The goal for all of us should be.... to get new users to buy ASA mounts and be as excited about this great technology as we are. This will insure continued improvement and as we all know, anything which does not continually improve, eventually becomes antiquated”.

 

Apparently you are experiencing an evolution in your thinking, for your earlier comments suggested a totally different point of view. I quote:

 

“I am starting to believe I should sell my DDM85XL and get a more practical solution. All the technology is worthless without good documentation and solid controlling software.”

And:

“For all of us, we are basically screwed. Realize we will never unlock the true potential of this mount without cutting edge software and highly detailed documentation.”

 

These comments made me write the post about my “problems” being more related to the steep learning curve than anything else.  And yes, I am not a professional, just a hobbyist who is really enjoying this professional piece of equipment and who would like to share that with fellow hobbyists.

 I am really glad you understand now…

 

Regards, Waldemar

[lukepower]

Hi guys,

 

I have to add that nowadays my setup is working, so let's leave the software as-is(?).

But hey, didn't it happen to you that, once you figured our what this Autoslew-Mount combination is doing, there would be plenty of cool things that would be possible?

I mean, ASA might have been on the front of direct driven mounts, but others are not sleeping. The new Ascension mount from Planewave, for example, is using absolute encoders and thanks to them is moreless matching the precision of our mounts. But they were clever and integrated MaxPoint into their software.

What does that mean? Once you use an automation package (and granted, not many are using that), every time it solves an image or makes a pointing exposure, it is added to the model. It's like a "pointing model on the run", which gets perfectioned with time. Why can't we have something like that with our mounts?

 

It is not always about working or not working. I had an issue with the AtPark command in most Autoslew versions, and it only got corrected in an unofficial betaversion (read: not even the betatesters got it) after nearly a year... A mobile user might not care about this, but everybody under a dome will, as it would prevent the automatic closure of a roof/dome.

 

It is right that you should learn how this piece of hardware works so that you can work with it correctly, but why making it harder than needed? Older mounts were easy, but tracked poorly Newer mounts should be tracking perfectly with minimum effort, don't you think so? With these mounts it is possible, and in some areas significant improvements have been made (like the motor auto-tuning). Making the software more beginner-friendly would for sure benefit everybody...

 

Now, let's see what happens...

[MarkS]

Hi Lukas,

 

I agree with you, it isn't just about working or not working. Maybe it would have been much easier to get up the learning curve if the documentation was better. For example, if it had done no more than stress the critical importance of correct balance and tuning, and how to achieve them, life would have been easier for me.

 

Aside from these core operational issues, judging by the comments and suggestions in this forum, the automation side clearly has a lot of room for improvement.  Let's hope that these matters get the necessary attention soon.

 

Regards,

Mark

[john32712]

Mark, not implying anything here... I read your post several times to make sure I wasn't misreading anything. We are definitely on the same page. The one point you make that stands out for me is how imperative it is to get the "best" documentation possible. Why? Because the learning curve is so high and we all have struggled to get to a certain point. Today, how would a new ASA mount owner utilize documentation that is even more outdated then when we were learning?  I appreciate your candor!

 

Waldemar, Please spare me the BS! You started of really good until you went off on a tangent about some evolution in my thinking and you are glad that I understand now. Lol!!! Understand what? I have owned Takahashi mounts, AstroPhysics mounts, and even a Celestron mount (first mount). Additionally, I currently own 40 acres in Florida which has several Astrophotographers with permanent observatories there. One of the individuals on that property writes the mount control software for Software Bisque (Paramount ME). So what do you want me to understand here? That I am wrong in having second thoughts about my mount purchase - which would be better served with great software and outstanding documentation? Sorry, there is no evolution here... I just want the problem(s) fixed. I'll will give you credit for a nice try!

 

Lukas, as usual, your commentary is spot on! This could be so much better, simpler, powerful, etc. If something is not improving on a timely basis, it is stagnating!

 

Regardless of the commentary/emotion which obviously exists here, we need to keep pushing for improvements. if anything, look at the number of comments we have generated. This forum has been dead for months and for the moment, we have rejuvenated it!

 

Best wishes,

 

John

[john32712]

Mark,

 

Regarding your comments about correct balance and tuning. What documentation are you using to accurately describe the tuning process with the current software?

[lukepower]

John, if you have some spare acres in Namibia or New Mexico I could put my observatory there, heh? The weathere here in the Alps has been not bad lately, but not good for astronomy

 

Back on topic: I am seriously considering to open a Wikia page for ASA mounts. In case somebody don't know this, it's basically a free wiki where everybody could write down what he knows or has learned over time, ths might be a better help for beginners.

Alternatively, why not open a thread here "Beginners: Start here" with all the tips we got together over time?

 

Damn, raining again! Have to cover the flowers now..

[MarkS]

John,

 

My starting point was the old AS manual which is on the website. I learned about balance the hard way: irrecoverable Position Errors. I trialled balancing accuracy a lot indoors - no stars needed. I now get final DE balance by taping Aus 50c pieces to the OTA in appropriate positions! Yes, it's that critical - with my DDM60/ASA10N set-up anyway. I later discovered a short paper on balance called simply Balance.pdf - but by then I had it all working OK. A massive assist with all this was to put an ammeter in the power supply lead to the mount. I still use it. It gives early warning if there is a Position Error brewing. (It's also fascinating to watch whilst imaging if there is a lot of wind about!)

 

On Tuning, I started by following the guidelines in the Manual, but I found that the Autotune function gave me very different outcomes depending, it seemed, on the starting conditions. I gradually evolved a set of tuning numbers manually, which involved backing away somewhat from the stiffest tuning given by Autotune. These work well for me, though I would not claim them to be optimal. There was much trial and error involved.

 

Regards,

Mark

[RamaSpaceShip]

Guys,

 

ASA has demonstrated very clearly that they have no interest in really improving the documentation to make it usable, either by beginners or more experienced users.

 

But I agree with Lukas, this is something we can fix by ourselves, and a wiki is very appropriate. On our proposal to ASA to set one up, other users joined, this triggered some activity to make some choices, but eventually nothing was done.

 

So Lukas, please go on, set this wiki page, and I am sure that other users will participate as I will do.

 

Regards.

 

Bernard

Edited July 11, 2014 by RamaSpaceShip

[lukepower]

Alright, brave users of ASA mounts, if somebody is in the mood you can give it a try: 

http://asausers.wikidot.com/

 

Edit: Also check http://asa-users.wikia.com/, might be easier to use...

 

Note that I guess you have to register to edit pages, but that's it. And it uses the classic Wiki syntax with a relatively comfortable toolbar with all the codes...

Edited July 11, 2014 by lukepower

[Waldemar]

Things got easier when the balancing and PID tools became kind of "automated" with Version 5.1.0.0. Kind of, for it still is very critical to obtain balance in three axes. Which the balancing tool of course can not provide. Balancing in different mount positions did not work because of this third axes effect.

For example my microtouch autofocuser introduces an inbalance which can not be corrected by the mount.The "direct drive motor" (as Starizona calls it) for the FeatherTouch 3.5" focuser on my TEC weighs over a pound and that really introduces balancing and PID problems. I use the same weight in lead on the opposite side to compensate for this. At the moment I am working on a lead in steel pipe replacement for the knob on the left side of the focuser for compensation. Rotating the focuser for better image position is not an option anymore because of this. The same goes for excentric filterwheels and camera's.

This is far more critical on the DDM's then on any other mount.

As far as I know this is not mentioned in the manuals, but it is a "must know" in order to get things working properly. 

I agree with Mark that  balancing may be as critical that a 50c piece is the decisive balancing amount.

 

Regards,

Waldemar

[MarkS]

I think it would be better to share our experiences on this forum than to start a new one. There used to be a Yahoo Group, but it was discontinued for the current forum. Let's keep to one place if we can.

 

Mark

[nakbrooks]

Mark

 

The problem is that a forum is rather unstructured and there is no means of editing each other's posts to enhance and refine a knowledge base. A wiki is the ideal vehicle. I agree that one sponsored by ASA would be preferable, but I think they should focus their limited resources on the printed/PDF documentation if they aren't able to do both.

 

Even with a wiki we will have problems handling different software versions and permutations. It is likely that the people best placed to populate the wiki will be using beta versions while those who are most in need of help will be using the release versions. The wiki will need to clearly identify what version each page is valid for.