Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue705(part of the issue): Added Altitude and Azimuth to TelescopeTCP class #3626

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

huntflex
Copy link

@huntflex huntflex commented Feb 4, 2024

Description

Issue 705 describes a need for sending Altitude and Azimuth with the Telescope plugin.
I've added this functionality to the TelescopeTCP class as a starting point. The plan is to extend the other classes when I've had more time to research their specific protocols.

With this fix for TelescopeTCP the Stellarium protocol has been extended with two entries Altitude and Azimuth which means that the packet length is now 28 bytes.

I've added a new protected method in the TelescopeClient abstract class that converts j2000pos to altitude and azimuth. This can then be used in any derived class that might need this conversion. More specifically , as mentioned above, it is now used in the TelescopeTCP class in the TelescopeGoTo method.

Fixes #705 (issue)

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • This change requires a documentation update
  • Housekeeping

How Has This Been Tested?

This was tested with a python script with a TCP server. The TCP server receives Slew commands from Stellarium and interprets and prints the contents to the console.
Example of a print where azimuth and altitude was added:
image

Test Configuration:

  • Operating system: Windows 11 Home 10.0.22631
  • Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (header file)
  • I have updated the respective chapter in the Stellarium User Guide
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Fixed codefactor comment "blank line at start of code block"
if(res)
{
const bool equinoxJNow = equinox == TelescopeControl::EquinoxJNow;
const StelCore::RefractionMode mode = equinoxJNow ? StelCore::RefractionOff : StelCore::RefractionAuto;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The necessity for refraction correction should depend on atmosphere visibility. It has nothing to do with JNow setting. What is your motivation to connect them?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually I'm not sure what it is used for. The reason I have this check is because I saw in the TelescopeGoTo method that it was used to correct the J2000 position. See line 300-304:
image

Is there a way to check for atmosphere visilibility. And if so should it also be used in the screenshot above?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO, when driving a telescope from a terrestrial location, it is safe to assume (the real, physical) atmosphere (in which we breathe) is on.

If you have "pure" J2000 data from a catalog/ephemeris (without refraction correction), You must convert them to JNow equatorial position without refraction correction (core->j2000ToEquinoxEqu(j2000Pos, RefractionOff) when the telescope expects that (and applies refraction correction internally).

Then, to compute geometrical Alt-Az position for a goto capable device, you compute alt-az position (core->j2000ToAltAz(positionJ2000, refractionMode);) If your telescope expects AltAz coordinates to be corrected for refraction, you should compute with RefractionOn. If your telescope expects AltAz position to be without refraction correction (because it will do that by itself!), you use RefractionOff.

I have never used an alt-az GOTO telescope, so I am not familiar with these protocols. Maybe this needs yet another config option ("Goto is AzAlt and expects/does not expect refraction correction") Does such a device track the object after the goto slew? Why not just send RA/Dec to a properly configured/set up mount?

Copy link
Author

@huntflex huntflex Feb 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know that my own Eq6-r pro does refraction correction based on the elevation you input. I don't know about other mounts.
Seeing that the class I'm extending is the TelescopeTCP class which is most likely used for (I asumme??) for a homemade telescope control system maybe it would be wise to have these options under the Telescope properties when you set up the host.

For example:
image

What do you think?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably the Boolean JNow setting will have to be extended to a 3-value J2000/JNow/AltAz, and an additional Boolean RefractionCorrection would govern the independent extra. @alex-w ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@alex-w I wanted to extend the relevant telescope classes with altitude azimuth. I thought a natural (and easier place) to begin with would be the telescopeTCP class. As you know the TelescopeTCP class is the one instantiated whenever a user configures a telescope with a "remote computer". I assumed that one would also want access to alt/az in this kind of setup since a "remote computer" might not be limited to an equatorial mount.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, the mount can be AltAz-only and I fear these mounts will not understand some parts of protocol. Plus EQ/AltAz-mount requires setting the mode. In both cases changes of protocols can be for first item only - commnication directly through a serial port. The second item is incompatible now (I really don't know modern use cases for old Stellarium protocol for mounts - a TelescopeServer).

What about real hardware - is it working in AltAz mode?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This may be useful for DIY projects with self-made controllers (e.g. Arduino, self-made axis decoder/motor protocol, ...). But I have never used the telescopeTCP stuff, so I cannot say how relevant this still is.
The docs in TelescopeClient.hpp indicate a "Stellarium telescope control protocol" to be included in "telescope server software". Where is this all? (Yes, Google found a 1-page file from J.G. on some "free" site.) Is/Was that a reference implementation of something useful? Then it should probably be archived in a repo here. And somebody who was involved should write the design docs to explain it all. (OK, dreaming...)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The first version of TelescopeServer is located in SourceForge (SVN: https://sourceforge.net/p/stellarium/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/), the second version is in GitHub: https://github.com/johannesgajdosik/TelescopeServer2

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So I'm wondering if this is the right course of action with this patch. Whether we should continue with this PR?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Az.Alt.: LMX200 with arduino.
3 participants