Just installed APP ...
 
Share:
Notifications
Clear all

2022-05-29: APP 2.0.0-beta2 has been released !

Release notes

Download links per platform:

windows 2.0.0-beta2

macOS x86_64 2.0.0-beta2

macOS arm64 M1 2.0.0-beta2

Linux DEB 2.0.0-beta2

Linux RPM 2.0.0-beta2

Just installed APP 2.0.0-beta 1


(@lammertus)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 95
Topic starter  

Hi Mabula and team,

I just installed the latest APP 2.0.0-beta1 version and did some testing on a dataset I captured yesterday.

All in all it seems to run quit some faster then the 1.083.4 version!

Only strange feeling is the viewer, but all works great, image shows up on the whole area in the viewer so over here no problems with that!

I hope to see the GPU version in the future ( any news on that front?? )

Best regards,

Lammertus


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4850
 

No news on that front just yet no, GPU acceleration is a big one to implement and will take longer unfortunately. I think though that having worked on getting this basis much faster, is a very important in-between step as well.


ReplyQuote
(@plicciar)
White Dwarf Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 17
 

I've installed the APP 2.0.0 yesterday on my MAC and tested on a session on M57 but the result is strange.

Does something has changed in star analysis and registration process?

I've submitted a set of 150 frames (quality non excellent, due to short exposures, some trees in the field degrading some frames and the Moon) but, while the 1.084 release, with default settings, selected 66 frames and produced a good integration result, with the new version the process failed almost completely.

It seems that the algorithm is much more restrictive.

Is there any new parameter that may affect, in the new version, the result?


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4850
 

No, nothing has changed there. Can you post a few examples?


ReplyQuote
(@plicciar)
White Dwarf Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 17
 

Ok, I try to post here some examples and info about the difference between the two.

First difference: 

- With 1.083 as the reference file the 0052 has been chosen (2.0.0 discarded it, failing registration)

- With 2.0.0 the chosen reference file was 0117 ( 1.083 included this file in the list of frames to integrate)

Second difference:

Out of 151 lights, applying the same calibration and with default parameters:

- 66 frames selected in 1.083

- 11 frames selected in 2.0.0

In attach the two ref files and some files that have been processed by 1.083 and not by 2.0.0 as well as the two results (the new begins with M57-200)

 Thank you for the support

 


ReplyQuote
Share: