Is there a way to add gain and offset if a camera to the file name?
Not right now. It would be trivial to add gain (assuming your camera exposes it via ASCOM), but we have no access at all to offset values.
While it may be trivial to add gain and offset to the file name there have been multiple requests to add things to the file name - the environment properties as well.
I’m not suggesting that these should not be recorded but what is it that makes it essential that these are in the file name?
All this sort of thing makes SGP more complex, more difficult to understand for newcomers, and potentially less reliable. Individually each additional item contributes little to this but eventually SGP will loose what people value in it, it’s ease of use and reliability. It will become a bloated un-understandable and unmaintainable monster.
Please, I’m not trying to throw stones. Just trying to suggest that some moderation in adding and extending SGP may be preferable, even if the high end users are slightly inconvenienced.
Chris
1 Like
I agree Chris. Having spent all my working life in Systems Development I realize that as you make changes, you not only add complexity but you also have a chance of breaking things that used to work. With so few clear nights, stability is the most important things for most of us. I understand the guys have to answer questions, fix bugs and add support for new equipment. New stuff should really add value to the product to even be considered. Too many changes lead to a more complex and less stable product. A recent thread on CN was riddled with comments about how unstable SGP has become. Never would have seen that a year ago.
This is not true… we have seen this thread since the beginning of SGPro. It will always be there and we will always do our best to stabilize it. If that’s not enough… there are other options out there.
Ha! From the guy who posted this (all in good fun… point taken):
Ken, my comment wasn’t a shot at SGP. On the contrary most people on CN - myself included - recommend SGP to new users regularly. Thats why I was surprised to see the recent thread that I referred to. Also, it was a beta being criticized.
However, I still think you already have a fully functional product, so you can be very selective with recommended changes. This is one way to protect the stability and keep SGP from becoming too complex. I believe Chris has a valid point.
No worries… I did not think it was (this is the problem it text communications… no inflection, body language, etc). I was just simply stating that the thread you are referring to (or some variant of it) always exists. SGPro is no more stable or unstable than it was a year ago… definitely more people using it (and maybe an uptick in threads concerning it). Some people have bad experiences and some people have good experiences. This is just another way of saying that people are highly likely to report a bad or very good experience and almost nobody reports an decent (overall OK) experience. When I say that there are other options out there, I am not being flippant or (passive) aggressive… I honestly mean it. Part of the SGPro price point is that you get to deal with our “part-time” support and testing models. If that’s not what you are after there are good options out there.
Well, let me be the first to report a decent (overall OK) experience. 
The recent thread on CN seemed to be primarily related to issues with the ASI1600MM and likely also related to the inadvertent inability of SGP to address large memory. You guys fixed that and the results seem to be coming in that the fix took.
I will disagree, Ken, with your statement that there are other good options out there. To the best of my knowledge, there is no software that offers the features and versatility of SGP, let alone for the price offered - part-time support notwithstanding.
Tim
Well, I certainly appreciate the support. I do not spend any time at all tracking other vendor habits, stability or support models. I do know, however, that my experiences with folks like Bob Denny (ACP) have been absolutely great. Because of this, I assume that the support models and stability (given that sequencing is a complex task) around software like that are also great.
It will be great to have gain in the file name. It is closest thing to ISO for a DSLR and that is available as an option. I am used to having ISO in file names - so not having gain was just abnormal.
Also, I am using ambient temperature in file name with ASI 1600 - but temperature does not show up.
What are you using to measure the ambient temperature? Is it connected when the camera is integrating?
This is the second time you have beaten me up over that enquiry. I hadn’t realised that it was such a sore point with you.
Not a sore point at all… just being a smart ass (a decidedly unattractive personality trait). I blame @Jared for dealing the first blow. I think I just responded with an ssh tunneling command. I am actually not opposed to the idea at all.