On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 04:09 PM, Martin Bonfiore wrote:
Let me test another, possibly flawed conjecture to test my understanding....within reason, the accuracy of the alignment process has a lot to do with the ability to command a goto and then see the object within the field of view....but it does not have a strong influence on the quality of tracking *if* you have an excellent polar alignment....???Like almost everything, the difference between practice and theory is the difference between theory and practice.
[That is, they should be the same, but often they are not]
If you have perfect polar alignment, then tracking should be perfect, in theory, and you would need to do an alignment, because there is nothing to compensate for.
But there are other factors that affect pointing, and/or tracking, including: cone error, balance, periodic error, or refraction (some of these OnStep can compensate for, but not all).
Oh, and doing an alignment does not correct tracking, only pointing. Although OnStep has full compensated tracking, which corrects to a certain degree, it is not perfect, because there are other things it cannot account for.
I did try periodic error correction, and full compensated tracking, but I ended up with autoguiding, and live with its quirks. Things are just way too complex with the consumer level gears that we have.