KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

[Hy Murveit]

Eric,

Not sure which issue your were confirming.  The possible initialKeep bug
would  not be minor, if it's happening it could really make processing time
long for hfr and focus, like the 20s you're seeing. I'd vote to fix that if
it's broken. The other one (spinbox) is an annoyance, I'd lean towards
fixing it now, but if you twisted my arm I guess I could agree to wait.

Hy

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 12:56 AM Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I confirm, but this is probably a minor that can be addressed in 3.5.1.
>
> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
> *De:* murveit at gmail.com
> *Envoyé:* 12 novembre 2020 09:37
> *À:* eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com
> *Répondre à:* hy at murveit.com
> *Cc:* mutlaqja at ikarustech.com; hy at murveit.com; rlancaste at gmail.com;
> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de; kstars-devel at kde.org
> *Objet:* Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
>
> *Eric:* I see. So, can you check to see you don't have a file saved
> that's messing things up (e.g. delete your ~/.local/share/kstars/
> SavedFocusProfiles.ini file if it exists, and then make sure you're using
> the "1-Focus Default" profile). You could play with the initialKeep and
> keepNum values in the kstars/ekos/auxiliary/stellarsolverprofile.cpp file
> in the Focus method. (Also see the note to Rob below).
>
> *Rob:* could there be a bug that if you have a saved .ini file, then the
> initialKeep parameter no longer gets set and uses a very high default? I
> wouldn't be surprised if that's what messing Eric up.
>
> Hy
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, for the record, I do agree that Rob should either expose the
>> initialKeep parameter or make it a multiple of the Keep parameter.
>> As it currently stands, it effectively limits the maximum value of the
>> keep parameter.
>> H
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:19 AM Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jasem: I can go either way I suppose, but in my experience, it's running
>>> reasonably quickly. I won't object too strongly if you want to fix it.
>>>
>>> Eric:  When I processed your images on my RPi4, they processed
>>> reasonably quickly:
>>>
>>> *Looking at the 1x1 image:*
>>> *Computing the HFR took 1-2s, but that's using my "quick HFR" which only
>>> looks at stars in the middle 25% of the image.*
>>> *Turning off the quick HFR option slowed it down to 4-5 seconds (again
>>> possibly alongside guiding).*
>>> *Are you using something slower than a RPi4? Could there be something
>>> else slowing down the computations?*
>>>
>>> *Looking at the 2x2 image:*
>>> *Seemed to take 1-2s without quickhfr, and 1s or less with quickhfr.*
>>> *FWIW, I run my focus with 2x2 binning of a ZWO ASI 1600.*
>>>
>>>
>>> We should figure out what the issue is.
>>> Hy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:50 PM Eric Dejouhanet <
>>> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is my case right now. But in the particular subject of 3.5, I
>>>> agree. I would like to know if the profiles are editable by the end-user
>>>> when they are saved locally, I mean, are all parameters from the file
>>>> loaded back properly?
>>>>
>>>> You know what I also mean here. Are there any tests validating that
>>>> part?
>>>>
>>>> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>> *De:* mutlaqja at ikarustech.com
>>>> *Envoyé:* 12 novembre 2020 08:46
>>>> *À:* hy at murveit.com
>>>> *Cc:* rlancaste at gmail.com; eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com;
>>>> sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de; kstars-devel at kde.org
>>>> *Objet:* Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
>>>>
>>>> That's fine with me. As long as it does end up generating too many
>>>> stars that ends up clogging HFR calculations unnecessarily.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:35 AM Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jasem,
>>>>>
>>>>> This close to the release, I'm inclined to be conservative here and
>>>>> let it be.
>>>>> It's just something I came up with, not some reference algorithm, and
>>>>> it seems to be working as it was implemented.
>>>>> I suggest that we can play with this in 3.5.1 if you want, but not
>>>>> mess with this now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:11 PM Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Robert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch on the partition & keep stars. I think we ought to resolve
>>>>>> this not by simply dividing by the number of chunks as this might skew the
>>>>>> results. In some images, some regions are more star-rich than others. Maybe
>>>>>> we should do a POST star detection but PRE star filter step where the # of
>>>>>> stars are then trimmed to the required initial keep?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:41 AM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh the more significant question that I asked though, I don’t think
>>>>>>> we addressed it yet.  Right now initial keep doesn’t work the way you meant
>>>>>>> it to due to the partitions.  Does that need to be changed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:37 AM, Robert Lancaster <rlancaste at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Yep they are the same kind of thing when it comes to stars
>>>>>>> certainly.  Your argument that HFR should correlate to magnitude is
>>>>>>> probably very true for stars, but not for nebulae or galaxies.  They can be
>>>>>>> large but dim.  It also might not be true for some stars with dust around
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:24 AM, Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kstars-devel/attachments/20201112/537efbac/attachment.htm>