Voyager advantages over NINA

4.40 Torben van Hees #... · view views · 3 likes
Another point in favor of Voyager that I forgot to emphasize above is stability. It really is front and center of its development. In 4 years I have lost not a single sub due to a Voyager bug. It doesn‘t crash. Updates work. Features are only introduced when they are mature. If something didn‘t work it has always been a hardware problem external to Voyager. Although I regularly use NINA for troubleshooting, it has been far less reliable for me. But it has come a long way within the last year or so, and I have recently managed to complete a full night of uninterrupted imaging. On the user forum, the Voyager developer is often brusque. I don‘t quite understand that stance, because it certainly drives some customers away. When using the support channels (email, voice), he‘s extremely responsive and helpful. Currently, Voyager‘s killer feature for me is dithered blue sky flats. They „just work“ full-Auto with all my scopes. Like

4.40

#...

· 3 likes

Another point in favor of Voyager that I forgot to emphasize above is stability. It really is front and center of its development. In 4 years I have lost not a single sub due to a Voyager bug. It doesn‘t crash. Updates work. Features are only introduced when they are mature.
If something didn‘t work it has always been a hardware problem external to Voyager.

Although I regularly use NINA for troubleshooting, it has been far less reliable for me. But it has come a long way within the last year or so, and I have recently managed to complete a full night of uninterrupted imaging.

On the user forum, the Voyager developer is often brusque. I don‘t quite understand that stance, because it certainly drives some customers away. When using the support channels (email, voice), he‘s extremely responsive and helpful.

Currently, Voyager‘s killer feature for me is dithered blue sky flats. They „just work“ full-Auto with all my scopes.

0.00 bobzeq25 #... · view views · 1 like
NINA pros. Does most everything most imagers want to do, well. Large user base to consult with. Voyager pros. Extremely reliable. Runs some checks on your subs as they come in, can fix many issues automatically. That does add a few seconds of overhead for each sub. Has two modes. "On the fly" is comparable to NINA. has some additional capabilities/adjustments. The Dragscript mode can do more than anyone will ever need, and is not that hard to use. NINA is a solid B. Voyager is A+, but will you use all the features? Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows. It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field. As often true, this is a personal choice. But Voyager provides value that exceeds its modest price. That includes a remote imaging session with the developer looking over your shoulder. Again the question is. What Voyager capability do you need that NINA does not have? For many, the answer will be - nothing. NINA runs a bit faster, because it doesn't check what's coming in. Edited ... Like

0.00

bobzeq25

#...

· 1 like

NINA pros. Does most everything most imagers want to do, well. Large user base to consult with.

Voyager pros. Extremely reliable. Runs some checks on your subs as they come in, can fix many issues automatically. That does add a few seconds of overhead for each sub.

Has two modes. "On the fly" is comparable to NINA. has some additional capabilities/adjustments. The Dragscript mode can do more than anyone will ever need, and is not that hard to use.

NINA is a solid B. Voyager is A+, but will you use all the features?

Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows.

It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field.

As often true, this is a personal choice. But Voyager provides value that exceeds its modest price. That includes a remote imaging session with the developer looking over your shoulder.

Again the question is. What Voyager capability do you need that NINA does not have? For many, the answer will be - nothing. NINA runs a bit faster, because it doesn't check what's coming in.

Edited ...

0.90 Jure Menart #... · view views
Disclaimer: I have no experience with either (I installed NINA on my Windows laptop to see it, but didn't like the interface too much - but it was really brief check so my statement doesn't count for much). But I would emphasize the big minus for both: They are both only Windows SW which at least for me is showstopper for using them. Edited ... Like

AdrianC. #... · view views
Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows. It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field. Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days Like

AdrianC.

#...

Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows.

It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field.

Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days

0.90 Rodolphe Goldsztejn #... · view views
We didn't speak of the GUI - in my opinion, both suck (sorry for my French). Especially when running them remotely. It's surely a matter of personal taste… IMHO, if both could implement a GUI like SGP, I would start loving them (and stop worrying) ;) Like

AdrianC. #... · view views
Don't think the GUI is a problem at all. The functionality of the software is what matters. We should be thankful they even have GUIs ) I recently learned how to determine the 0 photometric point of my image for photometry analysis. The best tool for the job is the GNU Astro software suite. It runs only under Linux and it uses terminal commands (no GUI at all). Another useful app is DS9, runs on Linux, Win, Mac, it has a 90's interface, but it's amazing at what it does. Like

AdrianC.

#...

Don't think the GUI is a problem at all. The functionality of the software is what matters. We should be thankful they even have GUIs

)
I recently learned how to determine the 0 photometric point of my image for photometry analysis. The best tool for the job is the GNU Astro software suite. It runs only under Linux and it uses terminal commands (no GUI at all).

Another useful app is DS9, runs on Linux, Win, Mac, it has a 90's interface, but it's amazing at what it does.

8.52 Reg Pratt #... · view views · 2 likes
AdrianC.: Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows. It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field. Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result. But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial. Like

8.52

Reg Pratt

#...

· 2 likes

AdrianC.:
Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows.

It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field.

Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days

NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result.

But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial.

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Reg Pratt: AdrianC.: Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows. It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field. Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result. But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial. Would you say that NINA has the same features of the Advanced version of Voyager? Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Reg Pratt:
AdrianC.:
Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows.

It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field.

Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days

NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result.

But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial.

Would you say that NINA has the same features of the Advanced version of Voyager?

8.52 Reg Pratt #... · view views · 2 likes
Rafael Sampaio: Reg Pratt: AdrianC.: Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows. It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field. Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result. But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial. Would you say that NINA has the same features of the Advanced version of Voyager? I've never used Voyager Advanced so I can't answer that. I used Standard and Array. But from the videos I've watched in Advanced and NINA's Target Scheduler Plugin it looks like their functionality is more or less the same. I terms of sequences I can confidently say that there 99% the same. The biggest difference between the advanced sequencer and DragScript is DS has the ability to run in a non-linear manner. Meaning you can jump from one block to another where the Adv Seq runs top to bottom. That functionality, along with the few commands DragScript has That Adv Seq doesn't aren't mission critical though. If I put my DragScript and Adv Seq side by side they are pretty much identical except The Adv Seq has some functionality that DragScript doesn't have. At least not in the Standard and Array versions. Edited ... Like

8.52

Reg Pratt

#...

· 2 likes

Rafael Sampaio:
Reg Pratt:
AdrianC.:
Fun thing. Voyager has a Robofocus mode. Every time interval or temperature change or filter change (your choice), it refocuses. As follows.

It stops the sequence, slews to an optimal focus star nearby (it has a catalog). Centers it (platesolving). Focuses. Slews back exactly where you were (uses the actual data, not the target RA and DEC). Restarts the sequence. It's fun to watch it do that. Your subs are focused at the center of the field.

Isn't this the general behaviour of all software? Stop, choose a suitable star, focus, slew back, restart. I use neither Voyager or NINA, but Prism, and it has the same steps as you describe. I assumed this is a general way of approaching focus, not a specific feature. Just curious, what are the other methods employed? It's cool to have so many options these days

NINA's default AF routine uses the entire field for AF, the Voyager equivalent would be the local field routine. This way of focus basically finds a result that gives the best focus across the entire field. This is fine for systems that are reasonably flat but for systems that aren't well corrected tend to do better focusing on axis. NINA users who have this problem can set the AF routine to use a RIO if they want to exclude parts of the frame from impacting the result.

But ya, as someone who uses both with full automation on a remote telescope there really is no wrong choice between the 2 software packages. The original question though was are there any real advantages to Voyager over NINA and to that I still say no. Not anymore. Try them both and see which one you like more. Voyager offers (I believe) a 45 day trial.

Would you say that NINA has the same features of the Advanced version of Voyager?

I've never used Voyager Advanced so I can't answer that. I used Standard and Array. But from the videos I've watched in Advanced and NINA's Target Scheduler Plugin it looks like their functionality is more or less the same.

I terms of sequences I can confidently say that there 99% the same. The biggest difference between the advanced sequencer and DragScript is DS has the ability to run in a non-linear manner. Meaning you can jump from one block to another where the Adv Seq runs top to bottom. That functionality, along with the few commands DragScript has That Adv Seq doesn't aren't mission critical though. If I put my DragScript and Adv Seq side by side they are pretty much identical except The Adv Seq has some functionality that DragScript doesn't have. At least not in the Standard and Array versions.

Edited ...

2.41 Dave & Telescope #... · view views · 4 likes
Don't have too much to add. Excellent discussions and comments already. I have used both. Voyager I am using for my permanent observatory setups. NINA I tried for my portable systems. I think both are excellent and you can make a case easily for either one. For myself, I decided to go with Voyager mainly because I found the user unterface easier to navigate, the autofocusing to be a lot more consistent and for me most important is the support I find is easier to obtain. Also the documentation on the "Voyager Wiki" is so detailed you can look up anything on there and get answers right away. I am an older dude and I found the NINA support is set up like a social media platform. I just could not figure that whole thing out. For Voyager I just email Leonardo and he gets back to me within a day. Now is that worth the expense? For me I thought it was. HTH Dave Like

2.41

Dave & Telescope

#...

· 4 likes

Don't have too much to add. Excellent discussions and comments already. I have used both. Voyager I am using for my permanent observatory setups. NINA I tried for my portable systems. I think both are excellent and you can make a case easily for either one.
For myself, I decided to go with Voyager mainly because I found the user unterface easier to navigate, the autofocusing to be a lot more consistent and for me most important is the support I find is easier to obtain.
Also the documentation on the "Voyager Wiki" is so detailed you can look up anything on there and get answers right away. I am an older dude and I found the NINA support is set up like a social media platform. I just could not figure that whole thing out. For Voyager I just email Leonardo and he gets back to me within a day. Now is that worth the expense? For me I thought it was.
HTH
Dave

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Dave & Telescope: Don't have too much to add. Excellent discussions and comments already. I have used both. Voyager I am using for my permanent observatory setups. NINA I tried for my portable systems. I think both are excellent and you can make a case easily for either one. For myself, I decided to go with Voyager mainly because I found the user unterface easier to navigate, the autofocusing to be a lot more consistent and for me most important is the support I find is easier to obtain. Also the documentation on the "Voyager Wiki" is so detailed you can look up anything on there and get answers right away. I am an older dude and I found the NINA support is set up like a social media platform. I just could not figure that whole thing out. For Voyager I just email Leonardo and he gets back to me within a day. Now is that worth the expense? For me I thought it was. HTH Dave Thanks Dave! Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Dave & Telescope:
Don't have too much to add. Excellent discussions and comments already. I have used both. Voyager I am using for my permanent observatory setups. NINA I tried for my portable systems. I think both are excellent and you can make a case easily for either one.
For myself, I decided to go with Voyager mainly because I found the user unterface easier to navigate, the autofocusing to be a lot more consistent and for me most important is the support I find is easier to obtain.
Also the documentation on the "Voyager Wiki" is so detailed you can look up anything on there and get answers right away. I am an older dude and I found the NINA support is set up like a social media platform. I just could not figure that whole thing out. For Voyager I just email Leonardo and he gets back to me within a day. Now is that worth the expense? For me I thought it was.
HTH
Dave

Thanks Dave!

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views · 4 likes
Well, I decided to buy Voyager Advanced. I will have a quite expensive setup (CDK 17 + Takahashi E160ed) in Obstech, Chile, so it’s important to me to have formal support. And Leonardo has been very responsive. I understood NINA has a lot (if not all) of Voyager features, but seems to me Voyager is a more robust, professional solution. Thank you all for the valuable information and insights! Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

· 4 likes

Well, I decided to buy Voyager Advanced. I will have a quite expensive setup (CDK 17 + Takahashi E160ed) in Obstech, Chile, so it’s important to me to have formal support. And Leonardo has been very responsive.

I understood NINA has a lot (if not all) of Voyager features, but seems to me Voyager is a more robust, professional solution.

Thank you all for the valuable information and insights!

2.41 Adel Kildeev #... · view views
Talking about N.I.N.A.- I tried get back to this progrsm after teo years, updated NINA, updated ASCOM planform, ASI drivers-but NINA keeps sending error messages Error Error 'ASI ERROR GENERAL ERROR from call to ASISetContro/Value(camerald=0, Etc i cannot operate neither csmera, nor Filterwheel… am I stupid or NiNA just hates me? Any ideas, friends? Like

2.41 Adel Kildeev #... · view views
AEF82EF9-873A-4D82-A6BF-7B88B572914A.jpeg Like

1.43 Scott Denning #... · view views
I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back. Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes. Far more elegant interface. And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service. Like

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Scott Denning: I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back. Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes. Far more elegant interface. And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service. That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager? Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Scott Denning:
I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back.

Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes.

Far more elegant interface.

And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service.

That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager?

1.43 Scott Denning #... · view views · 1 like
Rafael Sampaio: Scott Denning: I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back. Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes. Far more elegant interface. And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service. That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager? Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager. Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem. I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky. Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility. I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support. The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input. Like

1.43

Scott Denning

#...

· 1 like

Rafael Sampaio:
Scott Denning:
I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back.

Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes.

Far more elegant interface.

And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service.

That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager?

Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager.

Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem.

I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky.

Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility.

I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support.

The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input.

2.41 Adel Kildeev #... · view views
NINA is nor a virgin anymore The similar problems with freezing and error messages… I think I got the sourse of my problem-after latesr ASI drivers update works again… But I do not trust neither NINA nor Voyager. Prefer to use SIPS by Moravian Instruments. Couple years ago I also has some problems with their software but since they updated and cleared few bugs, works ok. Like

1.43 danieldh206 #... · view views
I will never renewed Voyager and will never suggest Voyager because according to Leo my simple GT71 with AM5 is not a proper imaging setup. Even though my current setup is simple it steadily improves as I get more experience. I want to learn how to automate my simple setup so when I do finally moved to a remote or more permanent setup I don't have to use a bunch of imaging time learning new software. It is perfectly OK for Leo to say Voyager is not trying to be popular and he can write the Voyager code the way he wants, but he should not get upset anytime someone seems to be negatively questioning a processes in Voyager. And the two support calls a year really only happen if you have a nice remote observatory with predictable weather. The best description I heard about using Voyager was, "automation via braille". Like

1.43

danieldh206

#...

I will never renewed Voyager and will never suggest Voyager because according to Leo my simple GT71 with AM5 is not a proper imaging setup. Even though my current setup is simple it steadily improves as I get more experience. I want to learn how to automate my simple setup so when I do finally moved to a remote or more permanent setup I don't have to use a bunch of imaging time learning new software. It is perfectly OK for Leo to say Voyager is not trying to be popular and he can write the Voyager code the way he wants, but he should not get upset anytime someone seems to be negatively questioning a processes in Voyager. And the two support calls a year really only happen if you have a nice remote observatory with predictable weather.
The best description I heard about using Voyager was, "automation via braille".

1.20 Ani Shastry #... · view views · 2 likes
I’ve used both Voyager and NINA, including the latest NINA 3.0 beta. I am quite familiar with both DragScript and the Advanced Sequencer, and in particular heavily use the Sequencer Powerups plugin for full nightly automation. 1. I have run sequences back-to-back with nearly identical results across nights with both systems with my remote rig at SRO. 2. Both systems are extremely stable, and I am particularly surprised at how stable the NINA 3.0 beta is. 3. The developers for both can be nice and standoffish, the advantage with NINA is that you aren’t paying anything so it’s less of a bummer in the latter case. 4. I find Voyager’s time of execution to be slightly faster. I believe the majority of that is due to single-star focusing being much faster than field-focusing for my focuser. 5. With NINA you will need to take advantage of a bunch of plugins like Hocus Focus, Sequencer Powerups, etc. as the core functionality is barebones. But with all those added, you get pretty much equivalent functionality in both. 6. One particular reason that may be relevant to you is that I can automate PlaneWave PWI4.1 and PWI3 from NINA’s sequencer and control the fans and heat in a fine-grained way. With Voyager you need to do this clunkily using external scripts from PW. 7. With two scopes on one mount, I think you will need to upgrade to the Voyager Array version vs launching two instances of NINA? I switched back to NINA because the Voyager UI is atrocious in my (subjective) opinion. And the web dashboard is mostly useless for any practical in-depth use and I keep switching back to RDP. Another reason I switched back to NINA was because I love the rapid pace of iteration and new functionality. That being said, I likely will go back and forth between the two at various points for the foreseeable future as I enjoy the experimentation and tinkering. Edited ... Like

1.20

Ani Shastry

#...

· 2 likes

I’ve used both Voyager and NINA, including the latest NINA 3.0 beta. I am quite familiar with both DragScript and the Advanced Sequencer, and in particular heavily use the Sequencer Powerups plugin for full nightly automation.

1. I have run sequences back-to-back with nearly identical results across nights with both systems with my remote rig at SRO.

2. Both systems are extremely stable, and I am particularly surprised at how stable the NINA 3.0 beta is.

3. The developers for both can be nice and standoffish, the advantage with NINA is that you aren’t paying anything so it’s less of a bummer in the latter case.

4. I find Voyager’s time of execution to be slightly faster. I believe the majority of that is due to single-star focusing being much faster than field-focusing for my focuser.

5. With NINA you will need to take advantage of a bunch of plugins like Hocus Focus, Sequencer Powerups, etc. as the core functionality is barebones. But with all those added, you get pretty much equivalent functionality in both.

6. One particular reason that may be relevant to you is that I can automate PlaneWave PWI4.1 and PWI3 from NINA’s sequencer and control the fans and heat in a fine-grained way. With Voyager you need to do this clunkily using external scripts from PW.

7. With two scopes on one mount, I think you will need to upgrade to the Voyager Array version vs launching two instances of NINA?

I switched back to NINA because the Voyager UI is atrocious in my (subjective) opinion. And the web dashboard is mostly useless for any practical in-depth use and I keep switching back to RDP. Another reason I switched back to NINA was because I love the rapid pace of iteration and new functionality.

That being said, I likely will go back and forth between the two at various points for the foreseeable future as I enjoy the experimentation and tinkering.

Edited ...

4.52 Georg N. Nyman #... · view views
I am using NINA for all my astrophotographic projects and I am very satisfied with it. I tried Voyager as well, spent quite a lot of time to understand the - for me - sometimes complicate settings but as soon as I want to use a bit more than the standard version offers, I need to pay quite a lot of money. I am not prepared to do so, period. Regarding automation - NINA is offering everything, which I think, is necessary to get a fully automated system - there are plug-ins for everything. Yes, it needs some time to get accustomed to the various settings, but the learning curve is steep and yes - everything works and the system itself is reliable. I do not regret to have Voyager uninstalled, I stay with NINA and I am happy. Like

4.52

Georg N. Nyman

#...

I am using NINA for all my astrophotographic projects and I am very satisfied with it. I tried Voyager as well, spent quite a lot of time to understand the - for me - sometimes complicate settings but as soon as I want to use a bit more than the standard version offers, I need to pay quite a lot of money. I am not prepared to do so, period.
Regarding automation - NINA is offering everything, which I think, is necessary to get a fully automated system - there are plug-ins for everything.
Yes, it needs some time to get accustomed to the various settings, but the learning curve is steep and yes - everything works and the system itself is reliable.
I do not regret to have Voyager uninstalled, I stay with NINA and I am happy.

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Scott Denning: Rafael Sampaio: Scott Denning: I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back. Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes. Far more elegant interface. And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service. That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager? Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager. Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem. I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky. Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility. I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support. The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input. Thanks! But how you get support from NINA? I thought that, as a free software, no one was under any obligation to solve any issue we might have. So, with NINA, do you have formal support, or the spontaneous help of the community? Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Scott Denning:
Rafael Sampaio:
Scott Denning:
I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back.

Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes.

Far more elegant interface.

And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service.

That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager?

Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager.

Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem.

I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky.

Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility.

I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support.

The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input.

Thanks! But how you get support from NINA? I thought that, as a free software, no one was under any obligation to solve any issue we might have. So, with NINA, do you have formal support, or the spontaneous help of the community?

1.43 Scott Denning #... · view views · 3 likes
Rafael Sampaio: Scott Denning: Rafael Sampaio: Scott Denning: I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back. Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes. Far more elegant interface. And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service. That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager? Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager. Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem. I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky. Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility. I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support. The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input. Thanks! But how you get support from NINA? I thought that, as a free software, no one was under any obligation to solve any issue we might have. So, with NINA, do you have formal support, or the spontaneous help of the community? The NINA Discord is amazing. Like a big group chat with users and developers that's active 24/7. The creators of NINA are on there as well as plugin developers, documentation writers, people making instructional videos, etc. I can almost always get questions answered in minutes. It's a big team effort that never seems to sleep! Like

1.43

Scott Denning

#...

· 3 likes

Rafael Sampaio:
Scott Denning:
Rafael Sampaio:
Scott Denning:
I used Voyager for over a year, but switched to NINA and never looked back.

Better scripting and automation, more stable/fewer bugs/fewer crashes.

Far more elegant interface.

And DRAMATICALLY better user support/customer service.

That’s interesting, never heard about instability issues with Voyager. What kind of problems did you have? And what automation/scripting features did you miss in Voyager?

Infrequent crashes, without any error messages. That's never happened to me in NINA in 2 years since I quit Voyager.

Also a weird bug with camera cooling that would take upward of 30 minutes during a sequence but less than 5 minutes manually. And then when I asked for help on the Voyager forum the developer posted in all caps "NOT THIS AGAIN!" and denied there was a problem.

I did use Voyager a lot, and once I got used to it, it worked fine. Over the years I have also used TheSkyX, CCD Autopilot, MaximDL, SGP, and KStars/Ekos. Voyager was notably more stable for me than KStars, and though I got fluent with DragScript it's really very clunky.

Being developed by just the one grumpy guy, the interface and many aspects of the system are idiosyncratic to the point of user-hostility.

I find NINA with its large community of users and developers to be head and shoulders simpler, more reliable, with a clean and modern interface and simply outstanding user support.

The scripting and automation (especially with the newer Target Scheduler) is extremely powerful. You can just set up a target list with prioritization, moon avoidance, custom horizons, etc and TS will gather data as appropriate running 24/7. I realize that for an extra charge Voyager Advance will do something like this too, but in NINA the functionality is free and gets better with time as the community provides input.

Thanks! But how you get support from NINA? I thought that, as a free software, no one was under any obligation to solve any issue we might have. So, with NINA, do you have formal support, or the spontaneous help of the community?

The NINA Discord is amazing. Like a big group chat with users and developers that's active 24/7. The creators of NINA are on there as well as plugin developers, documentation writers, people making instructional videos, etc. I can almost always get questions answered in minutes. It's a big team effort that never seems to sleep!

0.00 Johannes Rußek #... · view views · 2 likes
It is perfectly OK for Leo to say Voyager is not trying to be popular and he can write the Voyager code the way he wants, but he should not get upset anytime someone seems to be negatively questioning a processes in Voyager. If only I had paid more attention to users like you. I made the same mistake, hoping for a reliable commercial product that I pay money for to get support. This isn't what Voyager is. There is no support, only some grump Italian dude calling you stupid. I sent many questions, I got a useful answer once and only after I deciphering he meant for me to check a particular part of the wiki where the feature is (poorly) explained. I had unexpected behavior that was "not a bug", a question about how to do certain things on the f8 optics that was answered with "using long focal lengths is stupid but I understand you don't to admit it because it was so expensive" - and no help. This is not OK either - we paid money for a product expecting it to work as advertised and getting support for it. It has been hilariously frustrating thay I'll keep telling people not to do my mistake. I will now learn NINA and never look back. Like

0.00

Johannes Rußek

#...

· 2 likes

It is perfectly OK for Leo to say Voyager is not trying to be popular and he can write the Voyager code the way he wants, but he should not get upset anytime someone seems to be negatively questioning a processes in Voyager.

If only I had paid more attention to users like you. I made the same mistake, hoping for a reliable commercial product that I pay money for to get support.
This isn't what Voyager is. There is no support, only some grump Italian dude calling you stupid. I sent many questions, I got a useful answer once and only after I deciphering he meant for me to check a particular part of the wiki where the feature is (poorly) explained.
I had unexpected behavior that was "not a bug", a question about how to do certain things on the f8 optics that was answered with "using long focal lengths is stupid but I understand you don't to admit it because it was so expensive" - and no help.

This is not OK either - we paid money for a product expecting it to work as advertised and getting support for it.

It has been hilariously frustrating thay I'll keep telling people not to do my mistake.
I will now learn NINA and never look back.

1.43 danieldh206 #... · view views · 2 likes
Johannes Rußek: This is not OK either - we paid money for a product expecting it to work as advertised and getting support for it. Better and more friendly support for NINA and APT and both are quickly becoming more advanced than Voyager. Voyager can't even write the bayer pattern into the fits header. Like

	Distinct awarded users	Total awarded images
Image of the day
Top picks
Top pick nominations

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Deep sky
Solar system
Extremely wide field
Star trails
Northern lights
Noctilucent clouds
Landscape

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Backyard
Traveller
Own remote observatory
Amateur hosting facility
Public amaeteur data
Professional, scientific grade data
Mix of multiple sources
Other
Unknown

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Voyager advantages over NINA Starkeeper.IT Voyager · Rafael Sampaio · ... · 88 · 4082 · 2

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Voyager advantages over NINA Starkeeper.IT Voyager · Rafael Sampaio · ... · 88 · 4082 · 2

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry