Interesting idea. Some thoughts :
I would not want to make the assumption that having OAG1 in OT1 implies that that is the guider to use, or that that OAG port even has a guide camera attached. What if OT2 also has a guide camera somewhere ? Which one to use then ? I'd like to see the guide camera in the optical train explicitely listed as well. The choice which camera to use should still be with the user as we cannot deduce which one it is. Maybe the user wants to guide with the main camera of OT2. Also what if the guide camera is physically there but not to be used by INDI as PHD2 accesses it natively ? (this is what I actually use). Same for my SX-AO unit, it's there in the optical train but not to be accessed by INDI as PHD2 controls it natively.
Then on the idea of two imaging cameras, I like it and I see challenges like when to dither, both cameras need to wait for that to happen, and if 1 camera is waiting for the other to complete its sub it might have enough time to make another complete sub itself. Extrapolating to N cameras is cool, I agree we should design for N>=1 immedately when we leave N==1 where we are today.
I wonder what the purpose to INDI/EKOS is of something like a reducer in the optical train, it could be used to calculate the new focal length of course but then all spacing rings etc need to be added too ! This would be awesome to have of course.
OT-N support is very interesting, and it will be difficult to implement right without impacting N==1 stability which is already quite a challenge today In the end I think it will improve stability so I'm in
-- Hans

Read More...