hi andy
     i thought maybe someone would have an answer for you.  i 
wasn't sure i knew.  tonight, i set my version 2.76 to pluto and
was able to see pluto in a one degree field.  however, it is mighty
small!  i have my magnitude star limits set at mag 15 for 0 to 2 deg
fields.
   which version do you use?  i did download the planetary info
available at the cartes du ciel website.  i thought that was 
mainly for seeing an accurate view of which part of the planet
was facing earth and position of the moons.
  hope you can find something from this.  i don't know how long 
you have been using the software, so not sure what to advise.

dan cade
     

--- In [email protected], "Andrew Allen" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm trying to use Cartes du Ciel to produce a finder chart of 1 deg.
> or so for identifying Pluto in an eyepiece field, but I can't get it
> to consistently display stars below about mag. 13.5.
> 
> I downloaded the HST GSC in FITS, ungzipped the hundreds of files 
into
> their respective folders and pointed CDC to their parent folder, and
> set it to be the catalog used for 1 deg fields or smaller.  That all
> seems to have worked since CDC now repeatably shows stars to about
> mag. 13.5 that it says are from the GSC, but I'd really like to go 
to
> mag. 15 and it won't show stars that deep when I search for and view
> Pluto.  Oddly, it worked once a minute ago (got stars below mag. 14)
> when I had it display Jupiter, but subsequent searches for Jupiter
> haven't displayed those stars again.  I've unchecked the "limit" and
> "continuous" options in the "Stars 1" dialog and I'm looking at a 
sub
> degree field.  Is there something I'm missing, or a better way to go
> about this?  Weird that it seems to be intermittent.
> 
> FWIW, I'd been trying the "online resources" GSC options yesterday 
for
> Pluto but hit a similar magnitude limit.
> 
> Apologies if this newbie question is naive...I searched the
> documentation and the forum but am still confused.
> 
> Thanks for any help...
> 
> Andy Allen
>


Reply via email to