KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

Thu Nov 12 15:43:07 GMT 2020

Hi Eric,

Yes it is mostly in KStars, the editor is in KStars, the default profiles are now in KStars because we wanted everyone to have more control over the defaults so they can be tweaked in nicely.  But the reason that StellarSolver affected the saving of the profile here was because the == operator for comparing the profiles is defined in parameters.cpp and the function for conversion to and from an options map for saving or other uses is in parameters.cpp in StellarSolver.  I also have a convenience function for saving and loading profiles from a file in StellarSolver (but that was not affected by this issue).

> On Nov 12, 2020, at 9:10 AM, Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry if I was convinced the profile management was actually located in kstars and not in stellarsolver. 
> eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> De: rlancaste at gmail.com <mailto:rlancaste at gmail.com>
> Envoyé: 12 novembre 2020 13:18
> À: hy at murveit.com <mailto:hy at murveit.com>
> Cc: eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>; mutlaqja at ikarustech.com <mailto:mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>; sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>; kstars-devel at kde.org <mailto:kstars-devel at kde.org>
> Objet: Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
> 
> So the initial keep parameter not being saved was a bug in StellarSolver before, but I did fix it yesterday in StellarSolver before I sent those messages last night.  You might have missed it but I did mention that I fixed it with the other stuff I said.  So if you were using the older version yes it was not being saved, but now it should.  It was fixed in this commit.
> 
> https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/commit/88135877f588c977e190977afca1c5132aacbbe2 <https://github.com/rlancaste/stellarsolver/commit/88135877f588c977e190977afca1c5132aacbbe2>
> 
> It was not being saved previously because we had added the initial keep parameter but then hadn’t added it to the equals method nor to the options map method used in the file saving.  Sorry I did not do this before, but I think what happened was that we were experimenting with the parameter, we were debating how it could be used, similarly to how we were in the emails yesterday, but we were still thinking about it and hadn’t yet decided whether to leave it alone or change it, but then we moved on to other things and left it unfinished.  But I did fix it yesterday after your email flagging this issue Eric and Hy’s response which reminded me we hadn’t finished it.
> 
> All that remains here is to add the parameter to the options profile editor in KStars now, which I was waiting to do until we discussed whether to keep it as is or change the names.  I can add that to KStars next.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 12, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
>> De: murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>
>> Envoyé: 12 novembre 2020 09:37
>> À: eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>
>> Répondre à: hy at murveit.com <mailto:hy at murveit.com>
>> Cc: mutlaqja at ikarustech.com <mailto:mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>; hy at murveit.com <mailto:hy at murveit.com>; rlancaste at gmail.com <mailto:rlancaste at gmail.com>; sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>; kstars-devel at kde.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
>> De: mutlaqja at ikarustech.com <mailto:mutlaqja at ikarustech.com>
>> Envoyé: 12 novembre 2020 08:46
>> À: hy at murveit.com <mailto:hy at murveit.com>
>> Cc: rlancaste at gmail.com <mailto:rlancaste at gmail.com>; eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>; sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at openfuture.de>; kstars-devel at kde.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kstars-devel/attachments/20201112/6ff18358/attachment-0001.htm>