I did some calculations in
and they differ from your values above. Btw, microstep rate is inversely proportional to the offset. It's actually the T1 hardware timer value, so large values mean the timer will trigger less and the stepper speed would be slower.
I can see the same tendency in your spreadsheet (perhaps i made a mistake while copy/pasting the lines). But what i see now is, that my theory cant be right, because the speed would be a bit higher with every step with aggr 0,6 and that doesnt happen. it just stabilized like without the factor (or with factor 1) and that i cant understand
Last edit: 11 months 3 weeks ago by Mat. Reason: typos
I made another test, i think the implementation of the track factor or aggressiveness was a very good idea (could solve the problem if th mount goes a little bit to fast), but the implementation will not work, by simply changing the trackrate:
if you look at this records the only time the speed changes is with every change of the factor (while running) -> see green values and how the offset changes after setting a new factor. It changes ONE time, and than speed is back und the offset is on a new level:
i tried it the whole day and even wrote a "+400000" in the code for the trackingrate -> but it happens exactly the same thing i showed in the new logs... the offset value should change continuously (become higher or lower depending on the factor)
Thank you for implementing the PID loop as part of the tracking controls, Jasem. I have re-built the drivers and installed on the stellarmate. If I get clear skies (fingers crossed), I will test tonight. From Mat's recent post, it looks like you hit a homerun on the first pitch with this version. To confirm, no guide scope is required for the PID loop (i.e. optional as before), correct?
Mat, did you change any of the default values of the PID control or the T1 Clock Rate when you tested? if so, what values did you initially use if not the default? Also, thank you for putting in the testing this week on the other versions.