Hi folks,

I had hopes of catching up with assorted bugs in the new version
and posting said fixes tonight, but I'm getting tired enough that
I'd best wait until tomorrow. Better to work on the code tomorrow,
than to spend tomorrow debugging the mistakes I'd make tonight.

I did make quite a bit of progress, but want to at least fix
the PostScript problem mentioned by Rafael Barbera, and need to
document one currently-undocumented improvement in satellite
display (ability to use SDP4 instead of SGP4).

Bernard, the problem with "finding" VV Pup probably goes away
with the first Guide CD in the drive, and probably arose because
not _everything_ was installed from the Guide CD. In particular,
if you look under "Extras... Install to Hard Drive", I'll wager
that "star comments in 'more info' (121 MBytes)" isn't checked.

I dunno if Lawrence's "line drawing" bug is the record-holder
for length of time unresolved, but it may be close. The main
obstacle has been that I've not heard from a second person finding
the same bug. (If you _are_ such a person, please let me know;
then I can search for similarities.) My immediate thought was
"graphics card driver bug", but with three different machines,
I had to abandon that idea.

Robert Burns asked:

"...from reading the instructions on the above page, I understand
that I would NOT be limited to a small set of alignment stars but
could align on any stars or objects that I could identify -- true?"

True, and I intend to maintain that in the revised scope setup.
This has two benefits. First, if you happen to observe NGC XYZ,
you can tell Guide to align on it. After all, you're in the
neighborhood anyway. Second, it can be more interesting to do your
initial two-object alignment on, say, Jupiter and Saturn, or maybe
the lunar crater Plato and M13, than on a boring ol' pair of bright
stars. (Using a lunar crater as an alignment point has the slight
advantage that the moon is kinda easy for most of us to find.)

"...can the MEC data created by the alignment process(as I
understand the process) be then utilized by the Windows
version..." Yes.

"...when you say you plan to simply the MEC procedure, does that
mean incorporate MEC into the Windows version or make the DOS/MEC
version a little more user friendly?" I doubt I'll do much to the
DOS version at all. If I do, it'll be after the Windows version
is where I want it to be.

"...given what I'm trying to accomplish, (center of FOV
identification to with a couple of degrees), in your opinion would
I be better off abandoning the move to a tangent box, instead bite
the bullet and start gearing to Bartelize my G-11? (Pardon the
missmash of metaphor.)" I don't think there will be much difference
in terms of accuracy. The limits to accuracy don't seem to involve
which encoder interface you use or things of that ilk; it has more
to do with the mount, care in aligning, and good correction
software. A scope with encoders and a Bartelized/other GoTo scope
are very different beasts in terms of hardware, how you use them,
etc. But I've never heard anyone claim an accuracy advantage for
either phylum of scopes.

-- Bill