Hi,
I would like to request support for a second imaging telescope operating on the same mount. This would include focusing, filter selection and exposure control synchronised with another camera and dithering.
I know many people like me that have very few hours where they can image and very poor skies (it can be many many miles just to get out of the orange zone). Because of that quite a number of people are trying to image with two scopes on their telescope mount. Some are using an alternative piece of software and running as two instances - this leads to lost subs as the ‘slave’ system just keeps running whatever is going on - not ideal. There are very few solutions to this issue.
With Voyager I don’t even think it’s possible to run a second instance except perhaps isolated in a VM environment. I suspect this is a bunch of work but I see that four way control has already been achieved so wondered whether this request could be added to the wish list ?
Best wishes
Robert
1 Like
Hi Robert,
Voyager Custom version can handle up to 32 telescope (array) on one mount … i closed to 4 because 4 is the maximum number that a users of this version asked to me and confortable to show in one monitor. But this array management working on LAN or in a Virtual machine, not in a multi instace … Voyager actually cannot run in multi instance mode.
The array management can do what you ask and all sinchronized … just cannot do guided exposure because is not requested at the beginning
The work in progress (work in progess in terms of documentation) wiki about:
https://voyager.tourstar.net/index.php?title=Array
LO
1 Like
I can expand to multiinstance but remain the problem that the sequence in array is not the sequence you know and use in Voyager base. Setting and options is really a small set of the original Sequence. There’s some jobs to do to add guiding and other feature of normal sequence.
Thanks Leo. You have a Rolls Royce solution which is good for a professional or WASP type array. What I, and probably a lot of others, would want needs to be simpler in setup (just two telescopes and one mount). Perhaps something like a severely cut down sequence (slave camera) able to run asynchronously in Dragscript with another (primary camera). Not sure how easy that solution would be, I can definitely see some challenges in keeping it simple enough for most people to understand. Being able to run it all on the same physical OS I see as a must have if it can be done.
Best wishes
Robert
Robert … i’ll go for the multi instance and a Sequence called Slave where in Master running normal sequence. What i asked in another thread here is how you want i manage the dithering and the focus.
In array ssystem dithering and focus are syncronized.
Let me know , in this way i can decide the best solution.
Leo
Hi Leo,
Firstly thanks for taking the time to consider this, the way you respond so promptly and knowledgeably on all topics is always very much appreciated.
As for your question and my thoughts… dithering should be synchronised if possible otherwise subs will be lost but I’m not so sure about focusing. In an array all the scopes have the same characteristics so synchronised focusing is the only thing that makes sense. I have an FSQ 85 and RH200 both with entirely different thermal stability characteristics, in extremis perhaps someone might want to use a 10” RC and a Canon 200L lens. Looking at it logically (in my mind) then if focus occurs on delta temperature in both cases then if the deltas are the same for each rig then they could focus at the same time (assuming the same thermometer) otherwise they would focus when their respective deltas have been reached. I guess another question is whether the action of focusing will affect imaging on the other telescope - I don’t know the answer to that one but I suspect that a dual rig will have more than enough mass/inertia to cope.
Best wishes
Robert
I’m happy to help you and all the user … i’m an AP before all !
Problem of sync is if exposure is different in lenght, to dont loose sub slave or master must wait finish of master or slave exposure. This mean you can loose some time.
For focus is the same when is time to do focus … master or slave must wait finish exposure of the slave or master. This because doing focus separately mean two thing : the first is you can use only localfield to do focus (slave cannot move mount), second if focus is not sincronized movement of focuser of one setup can create egg shape of star in the other setup. If focus is in sync … this mean the master can use localfield (or pointing a focus star and Use RoboStar on a star) and do focus at same time.
Voyager array work totally in sync.
For my experience is better lower number of sub but better focused … but is my opinion.
Let me know you and all what you think … in this way i can satisfy all.
LO
I’ve been trying to boil it down…
Use case 1 - equal length subs:
Master taking 15’ Ha subs, slave doing 15’ OIII, dither after every ‘n’ Ha frames. In this case I think the slave needs to start each exposure at the same time as the master (synchronised start). This maximises imaging time.
Use case 2 - unequal length subs:
Master camera doing 5’ L, slave doing 1’ RGB binned 2x2, dither after ‘n’ x L frames. In this case wait for current slave frame to complete before dithering (synchronised completion). Some time might be lost but in the scheme of things it won’t be long.
I’m not sure whether that makes sense or whether it’s even achievable ?
For focus I think it can be determined by the settings of the master then wait for the last slave exposure to complete before focusing so yes focusing in sync - nobody likes eggy stars 
If someone decides to have 1’ frames being taken by the master and 30’ by the slave then still wait for the slave to complete - it is the users choice !
Kind regards
Robert