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.
Hello everyone.
I have been reading the forum and what I have noticed is that the calibration files often cause integration problems. I think this speaks to the importance of calibration files.
On the other hand, taking a calibration file is not an exciting experience. Perhaps many astrophotographers would prefer shooting nebula to shooting calibration files.
I am beginning to wish there was a tool for APP to test the quality of calibration files. Of course, even now the APP pops up a few notes about the calibration file.
Since it is displayed only after processing has begun, my suggestion is that the APP should be able to clearly indicate deficiencies in the calibration file that can be seen before processing.
Thanks for reading.
I think it's quite difficult to really know if calibration data is correct or not this likely depends a lot on the characteristics of a sensor and there are many of those arround. What APP does see is that if pixels turn black, that you likely have an issue, but it can only tell that after having used it on actual data.
@vincent-modÂ
Thank you Vincent,
I agree that it is difficult to judge exactly as you say. Still, I think it would save the user a lot of time and effort if the judgment could be made on basic factors (e.g., temperature, exposure time, resolution, etc.) by cross-checking with the light frame information.
Yes, it already does this basically. In the sense that it will not use the calibration data if it doesn't match regarding gain and such. It doesn't produce a big warning no, we may add that, but there is always a limit to what people want to see as warnings. 🙂 Maybe a setting for the future.
@vincent-modÂ
Perhaps the user is not aware that there is a problem with the calibration file until a warning is issued. It would make sense to eliminate the cause of the problem beforehand before proceeding with the APP process, rather than looking for the cause after the warning is issued.
If the tool were available, the user would recognize that failing that test does not meet the basic requirements. It would also seem to reduce the number of similar cause-related questions that are repeated on the forum.
While I would welcome a detailed description of the principles of calibration files in the manual that is being prepared, users would benefit if the tool freed them from visual verification.
This is not a new feature suggestion, but I still believe it makes sense for the APP to be widely used.
Thank you
