I’m not sure of the development cycle or roadmap, so I cannot comment on best use of resources.
I can say that for my hardware and setup I get better guiding with MetaGuide, but it’s not as useful because SGP doesn’t account for settling like with PHD. Meaning I have to input an abitrary delay between frames to allow the dither to complete and settle / contrasted with using PHD, SGP is aware of the settling and will start the next frame with the guided reports ready.
For my equipment and depending on the condition and dither settings my mount can take anywhere from 2 seconds to 2 minutes to settle. So if I want to go with MetaGuide (all other things being equal) I have to choose a 2 min delay between subs. Even if the mount settles out one faster. Saving 1 min between subs can add up fast when your taking 360 subs on a target.
I’m using the ZWO 290 mini as the guide cam and a 1600mm-cool for the main imaging camera. The 290 is pretty sensitive (especially when I compare it to my old starshoot), and o have found better guiding results from MetaGuides live video philosophy over PHD’s “longer” exposure philosophy. For whatever reason my Atlas seems to like the smaller more frequent corrections over the less frequent but longer corrections PhD provides.
I’ve played around a little with setting PhD to lower exposure times between 0.1 and 0.5 seconds but it’s not been designed with that same mindset.
So all that wind to say: There’s two philosophy’s when it comes to guiding and these two softwares were designed around them. I posit that for certain hardware combinations one will work out better than the other. Currently SGP has a much tighter integration with one over the other. The author of MetaGuide said that he believes he has everything in place for SGP to offer the same level of integration.
How much time and effort that would take I do not know, nor do I know of it fits into the product roadmap, thus the feature request.