First off, I’ve been using Voyager for almost a year now (as with most others, when the skies allow!) and I have to say, it is the most robust, versatile and reliable astrophotography platform management software I’ve ever used. Thank you so much Leonardo and team and thanks for the constant improvements and updates.
Two questions if I may. The first, is there a way to set the Equipment Profile via dragscript? I know it can be set now in dashboard, but was wondering if I’ve missed something in dragscript to achieve this. I have 3 equipment profiles and sometimes (my error obviously) I run the dragscript for one set up and forget to check the active profile.
Second, is there a way of preserving sequence progress. I’ve tried using dragscript to accomplish this but it gets a little messy. Is there a way to preserve a night’s progress in the ‘On the Fly’ sequences so that if you don’t finish all the slots/exposures in one evening, you can somehow save the progress to continue the following session.
For the second part of the question having Voyager manage the number of exposures over multiple nights sounds great in theory BUT it could only manage the number of shots taken and not the number of ‘keepers’. Passing cloud, gust of wind or neighbours security lights only become apparent in detailed inspection so I would much rather it was kept manual. Sequences are a cinch to modify.
@chrisjbaileyuk I too would like to see a mechanism by which the automation could automate keeping track of what frames are next required for capture.
To your point, we’d need a mechanism similar to a lightboard in traditional photography (in our case I guess it would be blinking) to sort which frames we want/don’t (that could be done in the morning, either using the FITSViewer or PI or APP or whatever) - I delete the data I don’t want, Voyager goes through and works out how many frames of each type of file are required to complete my data capture goal.
I mean, it would take some application logic and programming to make it happen, but i guess that’s what automation software is there for - to work for the human vs. the other way around
I know purists might say it’s “the lazy way”, but I also know people who think that using a computer to do automated data capture is lazy and then there’s the folks who insist on star hopping instead of plate solving and don’t get me started on the visual guys