Hi Jasem,

Did anything further happen with the Sitec/Mesu driver? There has been no change to the Git or mention of it on the Sitech Yahoo group. I have been looking at the Indi device list but it has not appeared there yet.

Many thanks

Graham

well, I was suppose to login remotely to their system to test it out. I actually wrote the preliminary driver but it required testing. I think they were busy and I was busy at one time when we were supposed to test the driver.

Do you have SiTechExe running on RPI3? If yes, you can perhaps provide me with TeamViewer access to your RPI3 and I can remotely login to setup a development environment to test the driver.

Hi Jasem,

I am working away from home at the moment. Can I PM you in a few weeks to set things up.
I have a RPi with Astroberry Server installed. I will be able to I will be able it to connect to the network and the Mesu/SiTech.

Regards
Graham

Sure that would work.

Has there been an update on this driver ?

I am very tempted to get the recently released MesuE200 mount but don't want to have to use a windows machine for the Sitech drivers.
I am a very satisfied INDI user with Kstars on a RaspberryPi4 which works great with my skywatcher AZ-EQ6GT mount.
Having an Indi driver for the MESU would be a big plus in helping me take the plunge.

You got Sitech program to work on Raspberry PI4? It was extremely complex to get up and running and even then it failed to install properly. IMO, the whole process needs to be simplified if this going to be viable for end users. Since Sitech is written in .NET, it requires Mono to run such executables. They probably need to invest in a solution where everything is bundled as one executable (App image or whatever) otherwise it would be extremely tedious for end users to set it up on non-Windows platforms.

No, I think you have misunderstood my post.

I would really like to have an Indi driver on my RPi4. As far as I know, none exists. Just trying to log the request for Sitech to produce one.

Already been down that road. There is low-level control for the mount, but developing an INDI driver for that takes considerable experience and time. It's even more complex than EQMod driver. SiTech solution is to use their existing software, which has been refined over many years, to offer high-level control, thereby making the development process a lot more straight forward. I will take a look at the software again and see if I can get it to install properly.

I received a friendly response with technical tips &tricks&links when I contacted Sitech with a link to the release of the Linux version of SiTechExe that in the long run might help.....
But that is not the customer-friendly solution I am waiting for. Does anyone knows if there is any news about a release of an Indy driver?
It's a bit frustrating to see that Argonavis, the controller that I changed for Sitech, delivers a INDI-driver for the Stellarmate.

I actually gave it a go and was able to run the SiTechExe using Mono after a bit of work, but then couldn't proceed farther. The problem is that all is handled via their .NET app, and there is no direct connection to the mount OR some high level libraries to do that. If they provided some SDK library that can you link with to do such control then it would work. That would better separate the GUI from the low-level implementation on their end.

@knro

I originally thought I could use INDI with a Sitech controller in an LX200 compatible mode. However I notice that mode is just a layer in front of the windows app. And the driver on github still expects the windows driver to be running (maybe it can be done through wine if mono didn't work? It would still launch their UI (Maybe on a Xvfb virtual buffer so can be headless? But maybe better than nothing?)

Last I heard(from the github issue) you didn't have any of the hardware, would it help if you had the hardware? Maybe I can contribute in part to a fund to help in the cost of one of the controllers? If you are not interested going that route, it is okay, was just thinking.

Thanks!

Edit: I guess wine would limit you to x86 Low Level seems the way to go if it is even worth the effort I guess.