Ok so I'm struggling here, I've followed all the instructions and cannot see any UCAC4 data.

I've put the ucac4.tdf file in the Guide 9 directory, I've got all 900 UCAC4 Z***.bin files in the UCAC4 directory, I've got all the u4i files in a sub directory from UCAC4 and I've put the correct UCAC4 directory path in the guide.dat file.
I've turned off UCAC3 so these now do not show and complicate things, I've turned on UCAC4 in the Extras - Toggle user datasets (tried on, fixed and auto) but still I do not see any UCAC4 data displayed ?

Have I missed something ? Any help would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Andy

--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Bill J Gray <pluto@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> pastorgalactico wrote:
>
> > If you remove the folder ucac3 guide9.0 works only with ucac4 and
> > is not necessary to have the folder inside guide ucac3 9.0
> > At least so far has not noticed anything unusual in the operation
> > guide 9.0 without being ucac3 folder and running the ucac4.
>
> Exactly. This is almost what would happen if, in Extras... Install
> To Hard Drive, you turned off (or never bothered to turn on) the "UCAC-3"
> option at the bottom of the list of things to be installed. Guide tends
> to assume that some files may not be available to it; in particular, if
> you've done a "minimum install", only about 12 MBytes are copied to the
> hard drive.
>
> But I'd recommend leaving the UCAC-3 files in place. You will probably
> find that if you try to display UCAC-4 at a wide field of view (several
> degrees), it will be somewhat slow. Guide's version of UCAC-3 is compressed,
> and extra files are provided for use at wider fields of view.
>
> > Another thing I'm thinking if you could get in the USNO A2 guide 9.0
> > full guide 9.0. and have the option of disabling it whenever desired.
>
> One _can_ display A2.0 (or B1.0) in Guides 7, 8 and 9 :
>
> http://www.projectpluto.com/update7.htm#ax0_direct
>
> But it's well to use this only when looking for very faint stars.
> A2.0 and B1.0 go much fainter than UCAC, but the quality of the data is
> much poorer.
>
> -- Bill
>