Thanks. I am heading for plate solving assisted alignment and ultimately guided tracking.
I must confess that the more I read about "alignment" and the more confused I become. If I understand correctly, Onstep's alignment using say, three or more stars, generates a model that accounts for errors such as cone error.
When I read about other so-called alignment tools/software, it is not clear to me that their alignment routines acccount for cone error (for example)...that they can achieve highly accurate gotos but only if there is no cone error i.e. they assume a cone-error free mount (through mechnical adjustment or construction). I think I can see that if you have a cone-free mount and do an excellent polar alignment then a one star "align" is all you need to have the system understand the spatial relationship between the mount coordinates and the celestial coordinates. One of the beauties of Onstep would seem to be that its deals with that mechanical imprecision by some kind of warping/transformation??
The one alignment tool in particular I was studying was connected with the Ekos software. I assume you use the onstep alignment, not the alignment feature in Ekos? Bottom line is that I am chasing my tail trying to understand the interplay between onstep alignment and an alignment tool such as part of the Ekos software?
I have been using Stellarium but I just took a look at Kstars and think I might give it a try. It certainly looks like it would require less CPU bandwidth than Stellarium and per your comments, can be better integrated into the mount control.