I have a double setup on my HEQ5 mount. One with an ASI183MM for mono shots and one with an ASI294 for RGB shots. I launched two SGP instances with appropraite profile to control one camera + mount and the other one for the second camera. When I start one sequence for the first camera, and then the second one for the second camera, the second sequence is waiting for the first one to complete…so is it normal ? what do you recommend ?
Thanks a lot for your help
No, that’s not normal. Are you selecting the “ASI Camera (1)” in one instance of SGP and the “ASI Camera (2)” in the other instance? You may want to double check the configuration for each of those drivers…and you may have to do it each time (I’m not sure how they store the last camera or if they even store the last camera).
It certainly sounds like your two instances of SGP are trying to connect to the same camera.
If you have setup the driver properly it saves the appropriate camera with “ASI Camera (1)”. For example in my first SGP instance, ASI Camera (1) is my ASI6200MM, and in the second SGP instance, ASI Camera (2) is my ASI2600MC. As long as you save the sequence then the driver should remember which camera goes with which designation.
Note that this does not hold true for filter wheels. Even though I have separate saved sequences and one has “ZWO FilterWheel (1)” and the other has “ZWO FilterWheel (2)”, the driver always tries to connect to the filter wheel attached to my ASI6200MM. So each time I have to go into the ZWO ASCOM driver (with the SGP wrench icon) and select the appropriate filter wheel in the driver itself.
Thanks a lot Jared !
i have retried taking care of ASI CAMERA (1) and (2) and checking I am not adressing the same camera, but same result. when I launched both sequences with two SGP instances, it waits for completion before launching the second one…i don’t understand at all…
Can you set one of the sequences to use the
Camera V2 Simulator and check what that result is. This will at least help to pinpoint if it is a driver or SGP issue.
Though is sounds like @joelshort is using a similar combination with success.