KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

Tue Nov 10 14:13:27 GMT 2020

One simple reason, HFR calculations.  They are very computation intensive.  If you want the HFR, it takes much longer

> On Nov 10, 2020, at 9:04 AM, Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On my system, as an end-user, I don't understand why the star detection takes less than a second in the alignment module (SmallScaleSolving), and more than twenty in the Focus module (tweaked version of SmallSizedStars).
> 
> So I did configure Focus to use the SmallScaleSolving settings from the Align module. I used the CCD Simulator to send one of my NGC6888 frames to Focus, and ran a capture. The Focus module took FIVE minutes to detect 29 stars. I thought the whole thing was crashed. 
> 
> The Align module took FOUR seconds with the same configuration on the same 31MB frame to detect 50+ stars. It said it wasn't parallel by itself. It did a downsample by 3.
> 
> So this is probably not a question of detection, there is another culprit somewhere. During the execution of the Focus detection, the cpu wasn't 100%. 
> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> De: sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de
> Envoyé: 10 novembre 2020 14:03
> À: mutlaqja at ikarustech.com
> Cc: hy at murveit.com; rlancaste at gmail.com; kstars-devel at kde.org; eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com
> Objet: Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
> 
> OK, I did a quick check on my RPi4 with Parallel Algorithm set to „Auto“ - and it works super fast! But since it is daytime, I can only test the „Load and Slew“ option. So maybe the WCS info in the file gave hints that are not present for normal capture and slew or sync.
> 
> I need to check it under real conditions, which might be tricky due to the fog hanging around here…
> 
> Wolfgang
>> Am 10.11.2020 um 11:16 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja at ikarustech.com <mailto:mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>>:
>> 
>> Alright, let's look at this:
>> 
>> 1. Parallel algorithm: This is related to SOLVER, not image partitioning. It should work fine on Rpi4 and the checks are more reliable now as Robert worked on that.
>> 2. WCS Polar Align: Can this be reproduced with simulators?
>> 
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Jasem Mutlaq
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>> wrote:
>> It wasn’t that bad. The problem was that KStars went to 100% CPU usage and died (or I killed it, do not exactly remember). I’ll try to reproduce it...
>> 
>>> Am 10.11.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>> OK, well I believe it was fixed a week ago, so if you can still recreate it, you should report it. 
>>> It should be fixed before release if it is still freezing the Pi.
>>> 
>>> Hy
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>> wrote:
>>> OK, I have to check it. The problem occurred only a few days ago and I think I’m always on bleeding edge...
>>> 
>>>> Am 10.11.2020 um 08:38 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang: I believe Rob and/or Jasem fixed the issue with parallel algorithm bringing down the RPi4 a while back.
>>>> I have the solver on auto parallelism and load all indexes in memory, and it seems to work fine (and in parallel).
>>>> Similarly, for star extraction, Jasem implemented a threaded extraction that also automatically determines how many threads to use and seems fine on the RPi4.
>>>> 
>>>> Eric: I believe these parallel options are the defaults. Hopefully users won't need to configure things like this.
>>>> For star detection, I don't believe you can turn it off.
>>>> For star detection Jasem split the frame before detection (into at most num-threads parts--4 for the RPi4).
>>>> For align, I'm not sure how Rob divided things.
>>>> 
>>>> Hy
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I think we are close to finishing the release. I personally would opt to wait for another week and keep an eye stability.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we should take another look if the default settings in the StellarSolver profiles work a) for typical camera/scope combinations and b) for all platforms.
>>>> 
>>>> For example with my RPi, I needed to change the Parallel Algorithm to „None“ because parallelity brought KStars down. Is the default setting „None“ and I changed it somewhen? With all the new parameters I would prefer having a robust setup and leave it to the user to optimize speed.
>>>> 
>>>> @Jasem: please take a closer look to MR!122, since it fixed 4(!) regressions I introduced with my capture counting fix MR!114. Hopefully now we have at least a proper coverage with automated tests...
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 09.11.2020 <tel:09112020> um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja at ikarustech.com <mailto:mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> So back to this topic, any major blockers to the KStars 3.5.0 release now?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Remote Solver should be fixed now.
>>>>> 2. StellarSolver Profiles are more optimized now.
>>>>> 3. Handbook not updated yet, but we can probably work on this shortly.
>>>>> 4. Couple of pending MRs to take care of.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How about Friday the 13th?
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste at gmail.com <mailto:rlancaste at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok so then we would be changing the way we do version numbering with this, right?
>>>>> I believe now we typically add features in each new iteration 3.4.1, 3.4.2, etc etc
>>>>> and when it is really big like StellarSolver, then we make it a big release like 3.5.0
>>>>> 
>>>>> With this new paradigm, we wouldn’t put new features into the master of the main 3.5 branch
>>>>> But instead we would work on a new 3.6 branch, and then bug fixes would go into the 3.5 branch
>>>>> to make each new minor release, like 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do I have this correct?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If this is right, then it would be longer before users see new features in the main branch, but the 
>>>>> tradeoff is that the main branch would have a LOT more stability.  I see this as a big positive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rob
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On Nov 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Hello Hy,
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more
>>>>> > bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).
>>>>> > So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable
>>>>> > delay after the capture completes.
>>>>> > The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the detection.
>>>>> > This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an
>>>>> > average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.
>>>>> > Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2
>>>>> > out of 10 attempts.
>>>>> > But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the
>>>>> > problem, I won't work on it immediately).
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil bugs.kde.org <http://bugs.kde.org/>,
>>>>> > but there's quite a cleanup/followup to do there.
>>>>> > I'd say we can use issues in invent.kde.org <http://invent.kde.org/> to discuss planned
>>>>> > development around a forum/bugzilla issue or invent proposal (like
>>>>> > agile stories).
>>>>> > There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think
>>>>> > they should be reviewed and postponed).
>>>>> > And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at
>>>>> > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3 <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3>
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 à 22:38, Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Eric,
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> I would add to your list:
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually if necessary) put the latest handbook online.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> - Review the extraction settings. I spent a bit of time looking at the default HFR settings, and based on some experimentation (truth be told, with a limited amount of data) adjust things a little differently than my first guess (which was basically focus' settings).
>>>>> >> Rob: My intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver star-extraction settings for Focus and Guide as well in stellarsolverprofile.cpp <http://stellarsolverprofile.cpp/>. I don't know whether you've already verified them, and want to release them as they are, or whether they are a first shot and you'd welcome adjustment?
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues>
>>>>> >> Is that right? Sorry about that--ok, after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link
>>>>> >> it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are "nice to have someday".
>>>>> >> A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Hy
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> Hello,
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.
>>>>> >>> - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see
>>>>> >>> https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941 <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941>)
>>>>> >>> - Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to
>>>>> >>> ~20 minutes (yeees!)
>>>>> >>> - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable
>>>>> >>> anymore from Ekos.
>>>>> >>> - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).
>>>>> >>> - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).
>>>>> >>> - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.
>>>>> >>> - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,
>>>>> >>> where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?
>>>>> >>> And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?
>>>>> >>> (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)
>>>>> >>> I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living
>>>>> >>> 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>> --
>>>>> >>> -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > -- 
>>>>> > -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kstars-devel/attachments/20201110/650ae546/attachment-0001.htm>