June 24 2026 APP 2.0.0-beta46 has been released !
Improved internal memory configuration (lower ! memory usage), fixed beta45 startup issue, fixed Set Save Directory & 2-panel mosaics.
May 27 2026 APP 2.0.0-beta45 has been released !
Fully Multi-Threaded LNC, many improvements for the registration engine, platform upgrade, and further tuning of internal memory consumption and memory release back to OS.
Apr 14 2026: Google Pay, Apple Pay & WeChat Pay added as payment options
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 Mabula,
perhaps it already exists, but I could not find it: I would appreciate to have an ASCII-file export of the quality scores of all the subs in the processing. Such a file would allow me to analyse the set-up and to see if there is correlation between quality and regions or periods (both on a small and large scale). Preferably such a file would comprise (at least) of the following data:
- Date
- Time
- Temperature (if available from FITS header)
- Humidity (if available from FITS header)
- Pressure (if available from FITS header)
- Image coordinates in RA/DEC (this may vary due to dithering)
- Image coordinates in ALT/AZI
- Star count
- Star roundness (median?)
- FWHM (median?)
- Background level (ADU)
- Noise (ADU)
- Any other readily available quality indicator that I missed here...
- A field indicating whether or not the sub was rejected based on quality
Thanks in advance!
Nicolàs
Hi Nicolàs @infinnity-deck,
There is no such option yet. I have added it to my todo list, but it will take some time before this can be implemented because of other higher priorities.
I think it is usefull idea though, so therefore I added it to my ToDo list.
For your information, the quality scores are a relative score, so you will need to treat it as such. A score of 1000 for a certain image scale can be a completely different score in terms of actual quality of the data, when compared to a score of 1000 for another image scale shot at another location with another telescope.... so for 1 single setup with the same equipment you can use it to deduct meaningfull information when you vary the exposure time for instance.
Mabula
Hi Mabula,
thanks for your response, I am glad you like the idea and am willing to include it. That the quality figure is relative is fine for my application as I am always imaging using the same set-up. Besides, once implemented, I would also have the separate quality indicators as eccentricity and FWHM to my availability.
Hopefully you to-do list is not too long 😉 (but then I am not in a great hurry).
cheers,
Nicolàs
