<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Hy, yes by all means we need to play around with the settings. One of my goals in setting up StellarSolver and the profiles is to set up a way for us to fine tune settings for different setups, to be able to tweak and perfect settings, share settings that work, and get a good set of defaults. I started playing with settings to make the set of profiles I included, but that was only just me trying some things. I don’t claim that my settings area really great yet. That is what I want you guys and the KStars users and testers to perfect. So by all means, play with settings. We should be able to come up with a profile that works really well for wide field refractors, and one that works really well with Newtonian scopes with small field sizes, etc. etc. So yes please, have fun with them. In the interface, I added the ability to tweak settings, and to be able to save and load a single profile, which could then be emailed to others for testing.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I will try to do some work on the Handbook, but there are still a few things I want to take care of in StellarSolver still. Plus it is the end of the Marking Period for me so I will have a lot of grading to do. But I will do what I can as quickly as I can.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rob<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 4, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" class="">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Eric,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would add to your list: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually if necessary) put the latest handbook online.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- 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). </div><div class=""><b class="">Rob</b>: My intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver star-extraction settings for Focus and Guide as well in <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/blob/f952564f40ac7e01c2ba382889b1b4f1048b12e1/kstars/ekos/auxiliary/stellarsolverprofile.cpp#L19" class="">stellarsolverprofile.cpp</a>. 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?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues" class="">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues</a></div><div class="">Is that right? Sorry about that--ok, after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link</div><div class="">it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are "nice to have someday".</div><div class="">A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hy<br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <<a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br class="">
<br class="">
Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?<br class="">
<br class="">
- StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.<br class="">
- However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see<br class="">
<a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941</a>)<br class="">
- Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to<br class="">
~20 minutes (yeees!)<br class="">
- From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable<br class="">
anymore from Ekos.<br class="">
- The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).<br class="">
- Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).<br class="">
- Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.<br class="">
- There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,<br class="">
where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.<br class="">
<br class="">
Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?<br class="">
And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?<br class="">
(we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)<br class="">
I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living<br class="">
3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
-- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>