Mar 28 2026 APP 2.0.0-beta40 will be released in 7 days.
It did take a long time to have the work finished on this and it will have a major performance boost of 30-50% over 2.0.0-beta39 from calibration to integration. We extensively optimized many critical parts of APP. All has been tested to guarantee correct optimizations. Drizzle and image resampling is much faster for instance, those modules have been completely rewritten. Much less memory usage. LNC 2.0 will be released which works much better and faster than LNC in it's current state. And more, all will be added to the release notes in the coming weeks...
Update on the 2.0.0 release & the full manual
We are getting close to the 2.0.0 stable release and the full manual. The manual will soon become available on the website and also in PDF format. Both versions will be identical and once released, will start to follow the APP release cycle and thus will stay up-to-date to the latest APP version.
Once 2.0.0 is released, the price for APP will increase. Owner's license holders will not need to pay an upgrade fee to use 2.0.0, neither do Renter's license holders.
Hi all,
This may have an obvious answer but I'm not sure what it is.
I have integrated some files and when I look at the finished file its FITS info has been modified so, for example, if I tried to run PCC in PI it would fail.
Ignore the PI example but am I missing something here?
Many thanks in advance....
It has its own header on the integrated file yes, but that should be for the integration and not the original files. I don't know what PI needs for PCC in that sense though.
Thanks it's the integrated file I'm speaking of, not the originals, they're fine of course. There may be many others needed but take for example RA and DEC info, they're missing from the integrated file and PCC needs those at the very least so it knows where the image is so it can compare with its databases.
Right, yes, I guess (I have to ask Mabula for that) that some info is removed as these values are probably different between frames and wouldn't make sense in the integration header. Not sure why that would be for Ra and Dec though, I can ask.
Thanks, much appreciated. This is more of a learning exercise for me rather than any real fundamental issue if that makes sense.
@scotty38 It is true that they are not included in the FITS header of the integration result and Vincent has reported that to Mabula.
In the mean time as a workaround, in the PCC window you can either enter the coordinates manually or search for the object that you imaged so PI enters those coordinates. It is not a solution and I repeat that it has been reported to Mabula but that way at least you can go ahead and continue post-processing in PI. you also need to enter the correct observation date.
If you need further help with PCC then please ask in the PI forum.
Thank you very much appreciated and yes I realise I can enter the info manually. I suppose I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything odd on my side to "remove" the info as it were.
Oh and this is not a PI vs APP thing at all, it's all for me to understand what I am doing and if I am doing things incorrectly.
@scotty38 Thanks Martin. It is not regarded as an APP vs PI thing at all. It can be hard to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, or in this case between the APP and PI forums where one will point at the other and vice versa. It looks like you're doing this correctly.
No problem Martin, we don't mind at all talking about the packages people use, it's more just to keep the thread focused in that sense. 😉 If it makes sense to have it included, I'm sure Mabula will add it. Thanks for notifying us about it!
Thanks both really appreciated. I'm still fairly new to all of this so I'm always wary of the problem being me doing the wrong thing and making "obvious" mistakes or just plain misunderstanding how things work.
I found this too which is pretty much what I'm seeing.
Thanks again....
Yes, that's correct, Mabula will have a look at it. 😉 Some of that info is changing which is why it wouldn't make sense to put that in the end-result, but for the Ra and Dec I do think that should be possible. We'll update this thread when Mabula had time to look at it.
Great thank you!
Looks like the image coordinates are still not in the FITS header for a stacked image, even if the subs have them. That seems to be a major shortcoming especially considering how easily it could be fixed ... even if it was approximate, that would be a great help with further file processing!
