Im just wondering if pinpoint really contributes to make SGP more robust.
Why ? Sometimes (rare but it happens) platesolve2 fails. Sometime the focus algorithm fails. I get a “strange W” curve instead of the classic “V”.
I’ve read that pinpoint uses the astrometry.net online service. So it will not be faster than platesolve2, as it would need to upload ad wait for astrometry to solve (if I’m not wrong).
If so, pinpoint would not be faster than blind solve, as it also relies on astrometry.net
It seems that pinpoint would allow a different algorithm for focusing, based on fwhm.
Is this the only reason why to spend 150$ ?
Please can you help me to understand if I really would need pinpoint?
I have Pinpoint but never use it. I have not found it to be as reliable as Platesolve2 and my local copy of astrometry.net. I set the first solver to Plastesolve2 and astrometry.net as the backup if Plastesolve2 fails. Works perfectly. And neither one requires the internet. Don’t waste your time (or money) on Pinpoint.
Pinpoint is pretty much outdated and somewhat useless in SGP. Better products are available for free and solve faster. Don’t waste your money unless you are going to transition to DC3 products.
Really? How do you define ‘outdated’? I had PinPoint before buying SGP. I have used it for years since in SGP without a single failure that I can recall over hundreds of imaging hours. It takes no longer to solve than the others. Judging by the problems aired by this forum, PinPoint appears to be quietly consistently working in the background while the others continue to throw the occasional tantrum. Yes, it does work better if you have the imaging scale and approximate position. That, however, is just best practice with any plate solver.
I have seen this with several Tak scopes, the bottom of the V or U has a bump. I know of three folks that have seen this, regardless of the focusing application. Is yours a Tak by any chance?
I am just saying, it has become outdated as a market leader for the masses since there are free versions of software that are actually better and most importantly free. Again, why would someone spend $150 on a product that is charging you for something you can get done faster and with more certainty with free ware. I still works well as you say and I was one who paid the $150 years ago, but have since migrated to something that almost never fails and is free.
If I were to do it all over again and knowing what I know now, I would never buy pinpoint unless I were going to invest in all the DC3 products, which I have heard are quite good.
How do you define better? Is it more reliable, more accurate, easier to use, or is it just free (and free)?
A statement like this needs some backup, or it is just an opinion, rather than fact.
I abandoned Pinpint for Plate Solve 2. Had a bunch of problems with Pinpoint hence my attempt to replace it with a better free solution. I did replace it. I also think that based on my experience Astronomy.net trumps Plate Solve II because when Plate Solve II can’t solve, Astronomy.net can. I don’t think it has ever failed. To get Pinpoint to solve things differently and potentially work when the default catalogue does not, you have to change the catalogues and fiddle with it.
I think my failover is Astronomy.net. I run it locally also as ANSVR or something like that. My comment is based on abundant personal experience. Fact can not really be proven in this forum so most everything is opinion unless there is some pretty solid cross referencing or some sort of objective scientific method based verification.
I am just saying, I paid for and abandoned Pinpoint for a better solution that works for me. People should consider this statement in their deliberations on what to use.
I have all three loaded in SGP, with all-sky as backup. I don’t care about things being ‘outdated’ as long as they work. Never needed to switch and probably use PP for 95% of the time and sometimes play with the others. I’m running unattended all night, so reliability is key for me. I returned to Win 7 Pro for the same reason, recognizing that at some time I will have to move on.
I think the choice of catalog has a bearing too on the reliability. I still use GSC but I’m told that for very small FOV, UCAC4 (3) is more useful. I have never altered the parameters on any of them, apart from the limiting magnitude. I figured that I didn’t need to match to ultra dim stars if i was only taking a 10 second image. It is interesting to note that if I solve the same image with all three, I get different results. That might be as much a catalog difference as a solver tolerance. I will have to fabricate a back to back test to assess speed since I think, once you solve an image with one, it updates the header and a subsequent solve on the same image has less work to do. I suspect if you lift the lid off the platesolvers they share the same engine, differing only in the wrapper.
I think the bottom line for me came when I switched out and found something for free that would do the same task more reliably for me. Then came the invoice for the annual payment and I just passed. I think it is a fine program and the best in class for a while, but it has aged and other applications are available for free that seemed to perform better. If you need it for other DC3 products then you have to have it. However, if you don’t the freeware is pretty darn good. Especially Astonomy.net or Ansvr
I know what you mean. The subscription model used by a number of companies is starting to annoy me too and questionable value for money when one considers that bug fixes and product support should be in the original asking price. I abandoned MDL as the fee did not seem to encourage product fixes or updates. The only one I pay is for TSX and even that I’m questioning now as the product is stable and there have been no substantial feature additions in the last few years
Hi
I bought pinpoint when sgp did not have a reliable plate solver and for solving images when you are near to target it is very fast so I still use it ( never have paid the annual fee and still works fine ).
In use I use local version of ansvr for a blind solve ( excellent never fails ) and then pinpoint from then on as it solves in a few seconds.
Personally I have never got plate solve 2 to work reliably particularly when imaging over 1m with a big chip.
I have access to platesolve 3 , shame this can not be incorporated to sgp for those who have it
Now would I buy pinpoint today with the other free solvers perhaps not as you could manage quite nicely on ansvr at the expense of a bit of time.
Harry
Several years ago I did a back to back comparison of Pinpoint with astrometry.net. I used both to solve quite a few images. Pinpoint failed to solve several of them, whereas astrometry.net solved all of them. This was a tougher test than many folks will experience. The reason being these were all much poorer quality images than I am currently getting. My hardware was all several generations back, using a portable rig. This is probably why folks like Buzz have good success with Pinpoint. If I were to feed them both good quality images now, I would expect both to solve all the images just fine. I have never had a solve failure with either Platesolve2 or astrometry.net. So why pay money for a product where there are two wonderful alternatives, both free?
I do have a portable setup, I am shooting from suburban sky, (Bortle 6-7), field of capture aprox 1°, and 99 out of 100 times I do get platesolve2 to solve and really fast.
We are very fortunate in astrophotography that so many utilities are free, like guiding software and platesolvers. There is not so much generosity in the realm of digital imaging.
Shame that FocusMax has gone the other way …
