New feature request

[Joao Luis Gregorio]

Hi,

I would like to suggest a feature for the planner... I think it doesn't exist yet.
Instead of setting start time and a certain number of exposures I would like to have a finish time...why?
In exoplanet observing if I have two targets in one night , the number of exposures gives me an uncertainty of the end time for the first target to end, delays of various sorts can extend the session duration.
Setting the start exposure time and end time is nice.
If not possible can I do it with a script?

Joao

[Bob Denny]

In exoplanet observing if I have two targets in one night , the number of exposures gives me an uncertainty of the end time for the first target to end, delays of various sorts can extend the session duration.

I understand your request. Before I put it on the list, though, what is the source of the uncertainty? The planner should be calculating the tine needed to acquire the images of the first target... at least closely (not exact).

[Joao Luis Gregorio]

Bob,

The uncertainty comes from the extra time I may get while waiting for the guiding error to be within the limit, I do sessions between 120 and 300 images, so even a small percentage may add time I can't account for. Also the target re-centering can add extra time. as I have a low error allowed .
Exoplanet Ingress/Egress have ephemeris I have to respect, that's why I find very nice the idea of have a START date/time and also an END date/time.

Joao

[Jim McMillan]

Bob,

Isn't this the old "#imageuntil" directive request?

Way back - before you even developed the plan compiler and things were still in VB (versus Javascript), I fiddled with the idea of adding such a directive myself. My poor brain thought it would be much like the #quitat directive, except that instead of exiting the imaging loop to stop, it would just move on to the next target. I never spent enough time to see if the complexity of #count, #repeat, #sets, etc. would make it much more complicated to impliment. But, since your looping code is logical and makes sense, I figured it could be done within the existing structures without too much trouble.

Anyway, FWIW.

Jim

[Bob Denny]

Yes. I'll look at this again.