Since I aquired an Losmandy G11 mount without any goto provision I decided to create my own solution. I was a bit reluctant to use a Gemini, mainly because of the cost, but also due to the reliability since the servo motors are somewhat prone to failure. I also like to have complete control over the software/firmware so that no "show stopper" issues will ever be a problem for me. Looking around the 'net I saw other goto systems that seemed capable, but either they had needlessly complex hardware or were commercial systems that cost about twice what they should.
OnStep is a computerized goto system, usually for stepper motor equipped mounts though any step/dir interface motor driver (including servo) should work. It was designed, from the beginning, as a more or less general purpose system and provisions were made in the firmware to allow for use on a variety of mounts including Equatorial and Alt/Az (GEM, Fork, Dobsonian, etc.) It uses an LX200 like computer command set with a few extensions to suit hand controller-less operation.
There's a telescope hand controller App for Android (free in the Google Play Store,) an option to control through a website (Smart Web Server,) and a dedicated physical hand controller (Smart Hand Controller.) Or, on a PC there's ASCOM and INDI drivers for control. These options allow you to setup and control OnStep using a wide range of software including my Sky Planetarium, Cartes du Ciel, Stellarium, SkySafari, KStars, PHD2, etc. You can see most of the control possibilities in the diagram below:
Also, please visit my StellarJourney.comsite for updates, links toOnStep resources, my other astronomy software, or to see someImages taken with the assistance of my OnStep operated mounts.
If you find OnStep useful and would like to show your appreciation and support please consider making asmall monetary donation. This keeps me motivated and helps cover expenses associated with my projects.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:30 AM, George Cushing wrote:
Optional are TX signals from the drivers to the MCU. Pin 39 is assigned to Aux 7 in the Shield's pinmap.
I have a OnStep X Config.h that is
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:30 AM, George Cushing wrote:
Optional are TX signals from the drivers to the MCU. Pin 39 is assigned to Aux 7 in the Shield's pinmap.
I have a OnStep X Config.h that is
Quote:
UART is supported in OnStep X.
No wiring changes should be needed for the Hujer Shield.
Roman's pinmap reads:
#define Aux2 4 // SPI MISO for Axis1&2
Thus M3 for Axis 1 & 2 is connected
Quote:
UART is supported in OnStep X.
No wiring changes should be needed for the Hujer Shield.
Roman's pinmap reads:
#define Aux2 4 // SPI MISO for Axis1&2
Thus M3 for Axis 1 & 2 is connected
Thank you so much :)
>>Notice how the Ground (-) and 5V (+) rows line up all the way to the I2C pins.
I should have figured that out myself...
----------------------------------------------This mail
Thank you so much :)
>>Notice how the Ground (-) and 5V (+) rows line up all the way to the I2C pins.
I should have figured that out myself...
----------------------------------------------This mail
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 08:57 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
But because I have no pride I will still ask the stupid question : the SQW>PPS.x+ connexion is supposed to go to the S, - or + row?Use S for
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 08:57 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
But because I have no pride I will still ask the stupid question : the SQW>PPS.x+ connexion is supposed to go to the S, - or + row?Use S for
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 08:57 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
Thank you very much - very helpful. I take it it means it cannot really be tested - it's simply accepted that the pps from the rtc will override
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 08:57 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
Thank you very much - very helpful. I take it it means it cannot really be tested - it's simply accepted that the pps from the rtc will override
Thank you very much - very helpful. I take it it means it cannot really be tested - it's simply accepted that the pps from the rtc will override the internal clock.
However that leads to more stupid
Thank you very much - very helpful. I take it it means it cannot really be tested - it's simply accepted that the pps from the rtc will override the internal clock.
However that leads to more stupid
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 07:49 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
3) Also, once connected properly (and the smoke has dissipated, the firemen gone home etc) is there a simple way to make sure the mega+ramps is
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 07:49 AM, Arnaud Frenchy wrote:
3) Also, once connected properly (and the smoke has dissipated, the firemen gone home etc) is there a simple way to make sure the mega+ramps is
I did Howard, I did :) But that really did not enlighten me :)
I suspect it goes like that :
But I am not even sure and I am not sure sda/scl are not crosswired here. As for 32K and sqw I simply
I did Howard, I did :) But that really did not enlighten me :)
I suspect it goes like that :
But I am not even sure and I am not sure sda/scl are not crosswired here. As for 32K and sqw I simply
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 07:53 AM, Robert Benward wrote:
Regardless, I am compiling 4.24C with my pinmap at the bottom of the config file as suggested. You can't do that.
OnStepX only.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 07:53 AM, Robert Benward wrote:
Regardless, I am compiling 4.24C with my pinmap at the bottom of the config file as suggested. You can't do that.
OnStepX only.
Hi Howard,
I am going through all my file sets documenting which works and which doesn't. I am trying to compile both the OnstepX and the 4.24C. This requires me to switch between board managers
Hi Howard,
I am going through all my file sets documenting which works and which doesn't. I am trying to compile both the OnstepX and the 4.24C. This requires me to switch between board managers
Hi guys,
Quick one - the search within this message board returned nothing conclusive.
I have my RAMPS1.4 all working and all but I saw that one of the main problem with mega2560+RAMPS is the poor
Hi guys,
Quick one - the search within this message board returned nothing conclusive.
I have my RAMPS1.4 all working and all but I saw that one of the main problem with mega2560+RAMPS is the poor
Sweet, thanks Howard. The convenience of the FYSETC E4 at only 25$ is hard to beat and if it doesn't work as well as I'd like, I can always use it in one of my 3d printers :)
Sweet, thanks Howard. The convenience of the FYSETC E4 at only 25$ is hard to beat and if it doesn't work as well as I'd like, I can always use it in one of my 3d printers :)
