PIER-14 Very Disappointed!

Hi Vikas,

As you'll recall it was decided long ago that Syndicate Submissions would no longer be vetted for the bad frames by Roboscopes due to nobody wanting to wait for the datasets in question, and if I recall correctly you also voted for that.

The agreement at the time was that we'd stop vetting the images and users would vet them themselves, as everyones opinion of what is good or bad differs and that you guys would just resubmit for extra frames needed (ie replacements)

So unfortunately the liklyness of you actually receiving a 100% perfect dataset is very slim indeed, specially whilst we are still in our bad Spanish weather seasons.

Either way, I will get Pete to check over the Pier and make sure everything is ok

Can you please list some example frames we can check if possible. And also whats happening with the dithering?

Phil.

hi

while i can understand Roboscopes not vetting the datasets but that shud not mean the datasets shud have technical problems such as intermittent bad framing and out of focus frames. I can vet for clouds and the occasional guiding errors causing star elongations etc. but my expectation is that the equipment related problems shud be sorted out quickly. its been a while since we have been dealing with the out of focus frames and frame jumping.

I wont upload frames here as one only needs to blink thru the said dataset and within 30 secs know what i am talking about...and its not limited to this dataset.

vikas

Pete will investigate the Pier and check everything over.

Greetings, 

Thank you Phil for your usual swift response and passing this matter on. I'm afraid to say though that 'that ship sailed a long time ago'. Why have issues such as these not yet been sorted out in a timely manner? 

The jump issue with the mount was documented in a post titled 'First results from pier 14 since the last visit'. That was made on 16th November. Whilst not as bad as the focus problem, it can still mean losing between 10% and 15% of the good data we get weather and focusing permitting. The focus issue can result in the loss of hours of data when there the sky itself is cooperating. 

Like myself, Vikas may be relating back to when this setup was working perfectly. To put this into proper context some statistics from about 18 months ago. First, the main difference today compared to then being the fitting of the smaller sensor 2600 camera and better filters.

Back in July through September 2021 a long job comprised of over 750 subs gave the following results.

Subs rejected due to sky conditions were 31 percent, those for mount jump and focus zero percent. So of those not affected by the weather, all were usable. Contrast that with the numbers usable right now from those not affected by sky conditions. 

Sorry for the negative content, but I believe the facts speak for themselves.

Ray

Hi Ray,

The point you raise is very valid, and this is why I always say to everyone, including Steve to use the Ticket System so that everything can be tracked, but everyone always posts in the forum and their grumbles and issues get lost in the ether.

I will stress again, that all and any issues with data, piers etc need to be put into the ticketing system so that they can be followed accordingly and not in forum posts, contact form or direct emails to Roboscopes.

As I say, this will be looked into, and I wasn't aware the dithering issue had already been brought up.

Hi all

My apologies p14 despite changes with did last time appears not to be performing 100%

Focus

Its an FSQ-106 and these are known to have focus issues for the first 2  hours of an evening and sometimes if the temperature drops rapidly this can continue longer, we implemented 30 minute focus routines to help with the cool down and changed some of the focus parameters also

Every time I check focus its in focus but as I said above it can drift with this particular scope rapidly in a 30 minute period and is a known issue that is out of our control.

Plate solving

The plate solving we will look again as we changed some parameters again and tightened things up

However, I will reiterate what Phil said, we agreed for expedience not to check the jobs on this pier at your request. so unless you tell us we are not aware of issues. It is also the rainy season so the skies are changeable with high haze and humidity so at times good focus and subs are not always possible, which was the reason you asked us to implement the zero checking policy in the first place.

Vikas has just informed us of issues so we will of course look into it and get them sorted. However if some of you were also aware before then why not say and open a ticket. We cannot help and solve things unless you tell us.

While I am talking about tickets, issues with subs or anything else like this, please open a support ticket as this is what its for as it puts the information in one place rather than a forum where it can get lost in the ether!

So going forward, I am now making a decision on behalf of Roboscopes, on Pier-14 no subs will be sent until they are checked for the sake of expedience or any other reason. Pete will check them all

Steve

Hi Steve,

Your reply for some reason makes references to sky conditions affecting the data. My reply to the original post only refers to equipment failures and that is all we are concerned about. If those are fixed then there cannot be any reasonable justification not to send us, as before, the data for us to check which is something we previously agreed to. Subs taken in high haze and humidity will be excluded by us regardless of whether in focus or not. 

Fair enough your point on the mount jump which I believe is a weakness on Paramounts, but regarding the focus issue I strongly disagree. It is simply not the case that the focus drifts out. After a periodic refocus all the subsequent subs are out, with focus not being attained in the first place. Besides I've data from the pier going back 2 years and I cannot recall focus being anything other than a rare occurrence. This very much points to degradation of the equipment with age, something I can very much relate to. 

Regards, 

Ray 

Hi Steve,

Your reply for some reason makes references to sky conditions affecting the data. My reply to the original post only refers to equipment failures and that is all we are concerned about. If those are fixed then there cannot be any reasonable justification not to send us, as before, the data for us to check which is something we previously agreed to. Subs taken in high haze and humidity will be excluded by us regardless of whether in focus or not. 

Fair enough your point on the mount jump which I believe is a weakness on Paramounts, but regarding the focus issue I strongly disagree. It is simply not the case that the focus drifts out. After a periodic refocus all the subsequent subs are out, with focus not being attained in the first place. Besides I've data from the pier going back 2 years and I cannot recall focus being anything other than a rare occurrence. This very much points to degradation of the equipment with age, something I can very much relate to. 

Regards, 

Ray 

 

Hi Ray, you are missing the main point of my response, we do not check the subs so unless we are told an issue is continuing despite us believing we have sorted it or indeed another glitch is taking place we do not know and cannot know.

We have zero problems sorting issues out and if we are at fault or we miss something we will simply say yes, our fault sorry lads, I have even shared extra data sets to make up for foibles or weather on may occasions in the past.so we are not exactly unfair or hardball with members as we like to deliver a good service.

What we are not however is clairvoyant, so if any members spot and issue in a data set let us know asap so we can sort it rather than waiting until one of you is unhappy. Its easier for us to sort a glitch for you than make an unhappy customer happy again.

Ray most of the time you wont see focus issues on the FSQ because we work very hard behind the scenes to mitigate them but in this instance I believe the inconsistent plate solving is to blame with focus stars being to bright but we need  to check behind the scenes. We cannot do this at present as the weather is bad but next week we will.

"This very much points to degradation of the equipment with age, something I can very much relate to." I disagree in this case as the equipment is not old

Kind regards

Steve

Hey Guys

When I submitted this job I expected it to be on the queue for a while.  In reality it isn't a Jan-March target so I was putting it on for April onwards when we could pick up when it starts to rise in the morning.....

I view this as bonus data - yep some of it was a bit iffy, but we can pick this up when it is at a more suitable position for the pier! 

I'm just goint to resubmit now so  we can bag it when it is rising in the morning in a month's time

Paul