I had a recent few months where I used metaguide intensively, both to see if it was better than PHD, and also to learn its approach to guiding (it's also a great way to fine-tune collimation)
overall I found the quality of guiding might be about the same/slightly better than PHD2, but it was not as easy to set up for automation. I couldn't get it to guide correctly after meridian flips (at least, automatically), it had a hard time finding guidestars when not being attended, and overall the software experience just felt more rough than PHD.?
I asked about in the forums CN etc. several times and found very few users and little to no response on my questions
?
I eventually reverted to PHD2, just fouhd?it was more reliable for automation
It's kind of a shame because metaguide's core idea and basic results seem promising.?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:01 PM Michael A. Covington <astro@...> wrote:
Are there any Metaguide enthusiasts among us?? I briefly confirmed that it works with my GM811G, but I have no feel for how it compares to PHD2 (I did only a brief test).? I have already confirmed that PHD2 works well.
I also did a brief PEMPRO session and confirmed that I can program PEC on my new GM811G, although I need to do a longer session to get better data.? Initial results are not bad at all, even from only half an hour of training.
