Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enforce counter-weight up in eqmod #798

Closed
nadvornik opened this issue Jan 4, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@nadvornik
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 4, 2019

Hi,

Is anybody using the "Enforce counter-weight up" property as implemented in #550 ?
I have found it is rather unstable and hard to use.
For example:

  • the object is 1 sec east of meridian
  • the client wants to avoid extra meridian flip so it requests goto with "Enforce counter-weight up" enabled
  • the message is delayed by network latency, the object passes meridian meanwhile
  • eqmod performs goto to the object which is now west of meridian, with "Enforce counter-weight up" enabled
  • it results in the extra meridian flip that should have been avoided

Also, I have another use case, not mentioned in #550: I have clear view only to the west, so I can keep things simple and avoid meridian flips at all.

I'd suggest this:

Add new property "Target Pier Side" with values

  • "Auto" - current behavior, with counterweight down
  • "West", "East". - enforce given pier side, abort goto if the target is outside of safe range

maybe also rename "Enforce counter-weight up" to "Allow counter-weight up" and use it to extend the safe range 1 hour across meridian. Alternatively this can be given as numeric property.

I can implement it if this is an acceptable change.

@knro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 5, 2019

I haven't used this feature myself. Would probably be a good idea to open a forum topic in INDI to gather feedback on this change. especially from those that make use of it.

@nadvornik

This comment has been minimized.

@TallFurryMan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 8, 2019

Also check #612, which attempts to implement the safe range part.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.