FYI the new filters when booking a job in the portal are as follows:

1. OSC - No filter used so standard colour imaging
2. Lum - IDAS  Luminance filter with enhanced HA response
3. HA/OIII - Dual Narrowband Filter
4. SII/OIII - Dual Narrowband Filter
5. RGB - IDAS D3 Dark site Skylglow filter  with enhanced Narrowband response whilst maintaining broadband colours

I hope this helps clarify what each filter is

Steve

Hi Steve, 

Thanks for that and letting us know.

Since we cannot reply to your Spanish visit post, I hope you don't mind me mentioning something here that I am not happy about. 

On pier 14, which is being replaced with a new scope, your intention as on prior occasions, is to add everything that didn't complete to the new queue. I disagree as it's pretty obvious we will end up with wasted imaging time. See below. 

Not just bad weather but set up changes to cure problems has imo really impacted on what we've received from pier 14 over the last 7 months or so. The following example is probably the most extreme one, but highlights the problem of just submitting jobs without any consideration to older ones and their completion. 

I was really looking forward to a 4 pane mosaic of the Spaghetti nebula submitted by Paul last September. Each pane was for 1.5 hours RGB and 7 hours HOS making 34 hours for the mosaic. Plenty of time as it was going to be available for the next 7 months.

A visit to Spain to again 'fix the stars'  meant that as is planned now, we received all the data captured up to the visit and the 4 panes were added back. Fortunately there ought to have been plenty of time still available, unfortunately it didn't complete. Add up the partial data collected prior to and after the visit and that's now wasted time. Simply adding back the 2 unfinished panes is obviously not a good idea with a new scope being installed. See above. 

I recognise your concerns about keeping piers fully occupied, but simply asking people to add jobs to fill the gaps when there isn't an intelligent queuing system in place, may have impacted on that mosaic and resulted in more time wasted than saved. 

(There's a risk that what I'm about to write may get me banned, but what the heck.) 

I know that you try and keep an eye on things and do your best to suspend some jobs or prioritise others, but I was actually referring to an "intelligent queuing system". :) 

There is an opportunity to start with a blank sheet of paper and try to agree on jobs in the queue that can be resubmitted, then actually discuss future targets. 

Cheers, 

Ray (ex-forum member?) 

Just a few screenshots to illustrate the mosaic. 

First is the status prior to the Spanish visit, the data we received. The next is after the visit with all jobs resubmitted. The last is the queue as of now and what we will receive. All those jobs are to be resubmitted. 

Hi Steve, 

Thanks for that and letting us know.

Since we cannot reply to your Spanish visit post, I hope you don't mind me mentioning something here that I am not happy about. 

On pier 14, which is being replaced with a new scope, your intention as on prior occasions, is to add everything that didn't complete to the new queue. I disagree as it's pretty obvious we will end up with wasted imaging time. See below. 

Not just bad weather but set up changes to cure problems has imo really impacted on what we've received from pier 14 over the last 7 months or so. The following example is probably the most extreme one, but highlights the problem of just submitting jobs without any consideration to older ones and their completion. 

I was really looking forward to a 4 pane mosaic of the Spaghetti nebula submitted by Paul last September. Each pane was for 1.5 hours RGB and 7 hours HOS making 34 hours for the mosaic. Plenty of time as it was going to be available for the next 7 months.

A visit to Spain to again 'fix the stars'  meant that as is planned now, we received all the data captured up to the visit and the 4 panes were added back. Fortunately there ought to have been plenty of time still available, unfortunately it didn't complete. Add up the partial data collected prior to and after the visit and that's now wasted time. Simply adding back the 2 unfinished panes is obviously not a good idea with a new scope being installed. See above. 

I recognise your concerns about keeping piers fully occupied, but simply asking people to add jobs to fill the gaps when there isn't an intelligent queuing system in place, may have impacted on that mosaic and resulted in more time wasted than saved. 

(There's a risk that what I'm about to write may get me banned, but what the heck.) 

I know that you try and keep an eye on things and do your best to suspend some jobs or prioritise others, but I was actually referring to an "intelligent queuing system". :) 

There is an opportunity to start with a blank sheet of paper and try to agree on jobs in the queue that can be resubmitted, then actually discuss future targets. 

 

Cheers, 

Ray (ex-forum member?) 

 

Hi Ray, some things like weather and equipment failure, yep you have me, Others not so much but a lot of this feels like frustration in people not talking discussing implementing and planning ahead. Not to mention your unusual love affair with the target Sime147

As for the equipment that's fitted on Pier 14, You have all voted on changes over the years including this latest one.

After the star issue came to light many moons ago we  it was offered to stay with the 35mm and native F5 but members wanted to Stay F3.6 with he reducer. because you liked the FOV and it was fine. We have done our best to flatten but as said a million times on the forum the corrector does not like 3.76um pixels and that will always be the issue.

This latest attempt with the E130 is us trying to get rid of the bad corners once and for all. Again you all had a chance to vote yes or no. and its a ton of work for us to do this, so to be dragged over the coales when its what the members voted for is a tad shall we say unfair lol

I agree its a chance for a Fresh start for all and I am hoping members finally start using our awesome scheduling software properly so it can be productive and perhaps talk to one another a little more

Ex member LOL - I have only a few rules, aggression hate etc etc plus repeated downright rudeness as you dont have any of these traits apart from a dry sense of humour your perfectly safe :)

Steve

PS

Ray in the case of Pier-14 i am not doing leaving old jobs live as the scope it's completely different being a reflector so I do not know its camera angle etc
We will be sending all data that's partially finished etc and then pausing all the jobs. we will then do a test job so you can see what you are getting in terms of FOV, rotation angle etc and I will await what the members want to do with the existing jobs

Steve

Hi Steve, 

Good to know that you're on it. :)

With regards to the vote to go native focal length and retain the 6200 camera, let it be known to everyone who reads this, that I was on the losing side and never voted to retain that darn focal reducer. :)

Kind regards, 

Ray (Still a forum member, for now) 

Hi Steve, 

Good to know that you're on it. :)

With regards to the vote to go native focal length and retain the 6200 camera, let it be known to everyone who reads this, that I was on the losing side and never voted to retain that darn focal reducer. :)

Kind regards, 

Ray (Still a forum member, for now) 

Guilty as charged. We all make the decisions that seem right for us at the time.

Hello Richard, 

This is the only post I could find right now on the subject, and it appears to show that you were for removing the reducer. My memory isn't any better as apparently I sat on the fence, but facing the way of having it removed, by giving it a 75 percent vote!

This was at the time Vikas made the suggestion, but there must have been a follow up from Steve suggesting an alternative approach, like using the 2600 instead. I have been unable (incapable) of finding said follow up with a vote. 

So putting that possibility aside, then had what was originally being requested been done, things could very well have been different.

Regards, 

Ray 

I believe that I found the original suggestion, by Steve, that the reducer could be removed to improve the stars and be carried out on the next visit. That was May 2021. There were only the two of us subscribed at that time, and because there were still jobs outstanding we opted to postpone the removal until a later visit.

Presumably by then more people had joined and later on there was a choice to remove the reducer or go with a smaller sensor. The rest is history.