Michael,
I agree on most all of your points. The SkyTools database is very good at
many things. You can view your observation logs by night, by telescope, by
eyepiece... whatever you want. But getting data out to import into
something like an Excel spreadsheet is impossible. You can not get any kind
of delimited text into or out of SkyTools. This is a huge liability.
Someday, upgrades to SkyTools won't be available. And at some point beyond
that, the application will cease to be incompatable with the operating
systems. That is my biggest current issue with SkyTools.
I do use a GOTO Plettsone scope, so charting is not as much of an issue as
it used to be for me. So this has become a non-requirement.
Michelle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sf-bay-tac-bounces@seds.org
> [mailto:sf-bay-tac-bounces@seds.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Portuesi (TAC)
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:47 PM
> To: indanapt@yahoo.com; The Astronomy Connection
> Subject: Re: [TAC] Astro Planner? Was: OI: Costa Rica 1/30/06-2/5/06
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Jeff Gortatowsky wrote:
>
> > Like it better than SkyTools? I've never cared for SkyTools. The
> > interface is weird. It's bug prone (and crash prone to be honest),
> > and just one of those programs I constantly try every few months
> > and promptly give up on again. There this is the author... thats
> > another story...
> >
> >
>
> Funny, someone asked this question in the Yahoo! AstroPlanner
> group, as well as in the Yahoo! SkyTools group.
>
> Someone in the skytools group said basically, "We don't
> criticize Greg (author of Skytools) here because we love his
> program so much and we respect him." Basically, he has his
> users cowed into not criticizing his software any more.
>
> In any case, I've been using SkyTools for some time to
> generate finder charts, and I wish I had a better
> alternative. AstroPlanner has everything I want, except for
> charting. If you have a computerized scope or setting
> circles, it seems like a very nice alternative to SkyTools.
> And nearly everyone agrees AstroPlanner is a much easier
> program to use.
>
> I responded (in the AstroPlanner forum) with my experiences
> with both tools. Here are my posts. I didn't edit them, but
> you can run them together. In between is a reply from Paul
> Rodman, author of AstroPlanner.
>
> ---------
>
> I have both programs as well. I can say that AstroPlanner is
> definitely easier to use, by a longshot. SkyTools is more
> powerful in terms of its feature set.
>
> SkyTools definitely has everything an observer could want in
> terms of functionality. But the program has a non-standard
> interface with lots of usability issues. For instance, the
> date/time entry dialog works in non-intuitive ways. The
> designer of the program does not respond well towards user
> criticism of the interface, to the point of getting
> belligerent over it.
>
> That said, for the one feature I care about most - drawing
> printed charts - SkyTools utterly blows AstroPlanner away.
> That's why I bought SkyTools and continue to live with its
> usability problems, even though I also have AstroPlanner
>
> SkyTools approach to storing logs - one unified log database,
> rather than a log database per observing list ala
> AstroPlanner - is also superior in design and concept, but
> again marred by poor usability.
>
> AstroPlanner is probably a better choice for automated
> telescope control, because it's built-in whereas for SkyTools
> its an extra-cost option. It looks like AstroPlanner's user
> base is mostly automated scope owners and imagers, so this
> may simply be a case of Paul giving the majority of his users
> what they want (and probably why its charting capabilities
> are not as strong as SkyTools).
>
> The summary is that the two programs are strong in very
> different areas. SkyTools does require quite a lot of study
> to get the most out of the program, AstroPlanner is more approachable.
>
> ----------- From Paul Rodman, the author of AstroPlanner:
>
> (Note: I have never used SkyTools, or even seen SkyTools in
> use. I have visited the web site and looked at the screen shots)
>
> The next incarnation of AstroPlanner will most probably
> include new sky charting features, and I am moving towards
> the "central observation database" method of keeping
> observations as well.
>
> I think the difference in approach stems from:
>
> a. The AstroPlanner approach (the users know what they want,
> even if I don't) vs. SkyTools' approach (I know what the
> users want, even if they don't).
>
> b. SkyTools' author has a strong professional astronomy
> background. I don't. He's also doing it full-time. SkyTools
> has been around a lot longer than AstroPlanner.
>
> c. Being a Mac developer since its inception in 1984, I'm
> more attuned to user interface and usability problems. Even
> so, I believe AstroPlanner leaves a lot to be desired. I'll
> be working on it for the next major version.
>
> I should also point out another advantage of SkyTools - the database.
> The author has (apparently) spent a _lot_ of time massaging
> his object database, correcting errors, removing
> redundancies, etc. I have neither the time nor expertise to
> do that myself, so you just get the "raw" data, in the form
> of "original" catalogues. I guess my approach does make it
> easier to add/update those catalogues.
>
> Paul R.
>
> -------- My response:
>
>
> --- In astroplanner@yahoogroups.com, Paul Rodman <paul@i...> wrote:
> > a. The AstroPlanner approach (the users know what they
> want, even if > I don't) vs. SkyTools' approach (I know what
> the users want, even if > they don't).
>
> Yes, you captured the difference between your philosophy and
> SkyTools very nicely. That said, there are places where
> SkyTools just totally nails it in terms of doing what you
> want. It's just the basic user interface and usability issues
> that really hamper the product.
>
> > I should also point out another advantage of SkyTools -
> the database.
> > The author has (apparently) spent a _lot_ of time
> massaging his > object database, correcting errors, removing
> redundancies, etc. I > have neither the time nor expertise
> to do that myself, so you just > get the "raw" data, in the
> form of "original" catalogues. I guess my > approach does
> make it easier to add/update those catalogues.
>
> There is another significant difference in approach between
> AstroPlanner and SkyTools with respect to the database. AP
> uses multiple databases, generally one per object catalog.
> SkyTools uses one big database for everything, aliasing
> objects which are members of multiple catalogs. The advantage
> of the SkyTools approach is that when you do a search in
> SkyTools, you don't have to weed out duplicate hits the way
> you do with AP.
>
> However, the designer of SkyTools had to pick a single "canonical"
> designation for each object in the lists. So, even though you
> are searching for an NGC object, it might turn up in the
> results list as a Messier object. If an object has a proper
> name "Whirlpool Galaxy", this is used as the canonical name.
> This has led to many confused users and questions in the
> forums, wondering why they have "Bode's Nebula" in their
> observing list when it should say M81. Very annoying.
>
> The author says he will offer a way to let you choose the
> canonical designation in the next version, but major updates
> to ST are few and far between (as opposed to AP, which is
> frequently updated).
>
> Finally, another significant difference between the two apps.
> Import/export options in ST are very limited. The author
> doesn't understand why you would want to use someone else's
> astronomy software, when his does everything. AP is better in
> this regard.
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing the improvements with charting
> and logging in future versions of AP.
>
> -----------
>
>
> I haven't done much observing in several months, so I haven't
> had much opportunity to use either application lately. But I
> just downloaded the latest final candidate beta for
> AstroPlanner and checked out its chart printing support. What
> I saw was not substantially better than when I first started
> using AP about two years ago.
>
> I have my beefs about SkyTools, but its charts are not one of them.
> They are intended for starhoppers, which I know are a dying
> breed, but for what they do they have no equal in any
> software package I have ever seen.
>
> On a single sheet of paper, a SkyTools finder chart offers
> three panes. One is an all-sky naked eye view, with telrad (or other
> finder) rings indicating the desired object. A larger pane
> shows a finderscope view, with a good amount of sky plotted
> as context and a ring showing the finder FOV. The last pane
> shows an eyepiece field of view, again with context. The
> views are all drawn for the telescope and eyepiece combo you
> plan to use for finding the object.
>
> With a chart this detailed, finding even obscure objects like
> Pluto is not overly difficult. At an observing session the
> night before Deep Impact hit Comet Tempel-1, I found the
> comet with little effort, while nearly everyone else, even
> those with GOTO scopes, could not find it.
> The reason was that the SkyTools chart was so detailed, I
> could match the eyepiece view to the chart and locate where
> the comet should be.
>
> You can configure other software to do something similar
> (MegaStar is one program with this level of chart
> customization). But the other great feature SkyTools offers
> is the ability to batch-print charts.
> Check off the desired objects on the observing list, then
> select "Print Chart for Each Checked Entry". A dialog pops
> up, listing the telescopes/binos you have setup. Choose a
> scope, and SkyTools will print a batch of observing charts
> for that evening, tailored for the scope. Being able to
> batch-print a set of charts for an evening observing session
> with one command is truly powerful.
>
> SkyTools charts are customizable in lots of other ways, and
> you can do other types of charts besides the finder charts it
> generates. It's amazingly powerful. AstroPlanner has none of
> this stuff.
>
> If AstroPlanner could generate decent finder charts and
> offered a batch-print command, I'd drop SkyTools like
> yesterday's trash. The SkyTools user interface is so
> convoluted that even though I can figure out its features,
> they are still very error-prone to use. It's frustrating to
> batch-print a bunch of charts in SkyTools, only to realize
> they all came out wrong because a non-intuitive dialog box
> didn't have the setting you wanted.
>
> But the fact that chart generation in AP has not
> substantially improved in all this time is to me an
> indication that my user needs are definitely in the minority
> amongst the folks who use AstroPlanner.
> I've noticed that the AP FOV display, which is the closest
> thing AstroPlanner has to the SkyTools finder chart, has
> evolved into a telescope control panel. It looks like a nice
> telescope control panel, but it doesn't benefit me very much.
>
> I'm looking forward to improvements in AP, but I have to
> confess that SkyTools will still get most of my usage in the
> forseeable future.
>
> Michael Portuesi
>
>
>
Received on Sat Jan 28 21:20:23 2006