Metaguide vs PHD2

Have any of you used both of these guiding programs? Which has worked better for you and why? What kind of mount do you use?

I come across mentions of Metaguide being better for EQ-6 tier mounts but it seems the majority people use phd2. As Metaguide works with video files it should have lower latency and if everything was equal should result in better guiding.

I'm going to try it hands on the next chance because I'm curious and 'll report on observations here.

Please share your thoughts.

Used both with my WD-20 (massive periodic error) and RC10 (2000mm focal length) and with MetaGuide I have tighter stars and better eccentricity. Also after a night the subs I have to toss away are almost zero, so I am a happy MetaGuide user.

The videobased guiding and live view is extremely helpful when youre setting up your guide settings.

I can recommend it.

Only ever used phd2 as I'm guessing most unless issues.
Might give it a try

I currently use PhD2 and SkyGuard for guiding. I've also used MaximDL for guiding. They all work well. Low latency for guiding does not necessarily result in better guiding. Unless the seeing is extraordinarily good, no mount can keep up with the bandwidth requirements to effectively compensate for the seeing induced tilt component in the wavefront. Active optical systems that can compensate for atmospheric seeing operate at a rate of a few kiHz, which is way beyond what your mount can do. If you try to compensate for high speed tilt components, you'll end up with phase errors, which will actually amplify the errors that you are trying to correct. This is commonly called "chasing the seeing." The correct way to guide is to be reasonably well polar aligned and to use a good mount (with PEC enabled) to track at a rate well below the response of mount, which will be in the range of 3 -10 seconds, which should be within the time range where your mount can track perfectly. Guiding isn't for correcting seeing; it's for correcting for small errors in tracking due to such things as rate errors, PA errors, mechanical flexure, cross-talk between the axis, cone error, atmospheric refraction, drive train (PE) errors and maybe other stuff that I can't think of at the moment.

PHD2 is easy, its free, there are million users so it's easy to get help and it works really well. Try it. You'll like it.

John

Thanks, I currently use phd2 and understand why it is so popular. It has the benefit and care of many people over many years and has been purposely made to be easy for beginners.

I don't believe metaguide is intended to control at a high frequency but rather deal with the seeing induced problems in a different way. At some point they implemented multi star guiding in PHD2 to deal with atmospheric seeing to do the same thing.

I think metaguide only looks at one star but has the benefit of a much higher sampling rate and doesn't have to wait for the next multi-second exposure to make a change and can step in sooner if needed.

Himanshu Pandey:
Thanks, I currently use phd2 and understand why it is so popular. It has the benefit and care of many people over many years and has been purposely made to be easy for beginners.

I don't believe metaguide is intended to control at a high frequency but rather deal with the seeing induced problems in a different way. At some point they implemented multi star guiding in PHD2 to deal with atmospheric seeing to do the same thing.

I think metaguide only looks at one star but has the benefit of a much higher sampling rate and doesn't have to wait for the next multi-second exposure to make a change and can step in sooner if needed.

I doubt that Metaguide will produce better results but there's no harm in trying it. I don't have anything against it so if you like it, use it. I personally have found PHD2 to be easy to use and it works quite well. Good luck with whatever you choose!

John

Looking forward to the field tests…

I use PHD2 on my guided setup because it's simple enough and works well and I've used it forever. I've also tried MetaGuide, and it seemed to work just as well, but didn't give me a reason to switch in terms of better end results. I have a feeling that it probably would give better results on a mount with more periodic/other error since it can be more responsive potentially, however my mounts don't generally need to be fussed with much.

Kyle

Himanshu Pandey:
Thanks, I currently use phd2 and understand why it is so popular. It has the benefit and care of many people over many years and has been purposely made to be easy for beginners.

I don't believe metaguide is intended to control at a high frequency but rather deal with the seeing induced problems in a different way. At some point they implemented multi star guiding in PHD2 to deal with atmospheric seeing to do the same thing.

I think metaguide only looks at one star but has the benefit of a much higher sampling rate and doesn't have to wait for the next multi-second exposure to make a change and can step in sooner if needed.

*
Yes, MetaGuide uses one star and averages out the centroid via videobased "lucky guiding". Me personally I guide with a 5iii585M at around 5-10fps with guide pulses between 0.75 and 1.5 seconds. This means if I guide every second metaguide calculates the centroid from a stacked average of 9 - 10 frames which works really well (for me). "Nervous" mounts like strain waves without encoders or cheaper mounts do benefit from this approach.

Talking about guiding tools is one thing, I would recommend testing them on the same target and several nights and see for yourself. I did it too and definetly do benefit from aggressive guiding (much better FWHMs and better eccentricity). I thought I am just living in "bad seeing" but I was just not guiding well enough with PHD2.

Some say it is complicated but Frank @Freestar8n updated the documentation and has his own forum around MetaGuide if you need help.

Happy guiding!

Regards
Tobi

I’ve used both on my AP1200 mounts and in all honesty just prefer PHD2 over MetaGuide FOR GUIDING! I still use MetaGuide but really only for tweaking collimation in better with my 12” newt. I like the fact that it works with a “focused” star and like its been mentioned in this thread uses the centroid of the star.

Some comments about MetaGuide is I personally find it not very intuitive to use, the interface. Now maybe others that are more computer/software literate then I may like it but as I mentioned above I’ve just stayed with PHD2 for guiding and just use it for collimation.

Dale

I've just downloaded it and will give MG a try. I don't know it will be an improvement for guiding but there certainly is room for the possibility. I suspect that it might be a case where any improvements might be highly dependent on your hardware and conditions.

I just switched to the Mgen3 guiding system

I just switched to the Mgen3 guiding system

Any results yet?

I have Sh2-180 just on the doorstep

Tobiasz:
Himanshu Pandey:
Thanks, I currently use phd2 and understand why it is so popular. It has the benefit and care of many people over many years and has been purposely made to be easy for beginners.

I don't believe metaguide is intended to control at a high frequency but rather deal with the seeing induced problems in a different way. At some point they implemented multi star guiding in PHD2 to deal with atmospheric seeing to do the same thing.

I think metaguide only looks at one star but has the benefit of a much higher sampling rate and doesn't have to wait for the next multi-second exposure to make a change and can step in sooner if needed.

*
Yes, MetaGuide uses one star and averages out the centroid via videobased "lucky guiding". Me personally I guide with a 5iii585M at around 5-10fps with guide pulses between 0.75 and 1.5 seconds. This means if I guide every second metaguide calculates the centroid from a stacked average of 9 - 10 frames which works really well (for me). "Nervous" mounts like strain waves without encoders or cheaper mounts do benefit from this approach.

Talking about guiding tools is one thing, I would recommend testing them on the same target and several nights and see for yourself. I did it too and definetly do benefit from aggressive guiding (much better FWHMs and better eccentricity). I thought I am just living in "bad seeing" but I was just not guiding well enough with PHD2.

Some say it is complicated but Frank @Freestar8n updated the documentation and has his own forum around MetaGuide if you need help.

Happy guiding!

Regards
Tobi

Hi,
Is this the same thing Like Zfilter in phd2?
zfilter works Fine in some conditions.
sometimes I have Great Results in dec with Pool polar aligment to fight backlash

Tried meta guide yesterday but direct show drivers don't seem to work with my 120mm mini

TiffsAndAstro:
Tried meta guide yesterday but direct show drivers don't seem to work with my 120mm mini

have you tried the latest ZWO driver? 3.25 dated 2-26-2025

https://www.zwoastro.com/software/

Edit: the latest ZWO directshow driver is version 3.37. Its on the Others tab, not the desktop app driver page.

Himanshu Pandey:
TiffsAndAstro:
Tried meta guide yesterday but direct show drivers don't seem to work with my 120mm mini

have you tried the latest ZWO driver? 3.25 dated 2-26-2025

https://www.zwoastro.com/software/

Think mine said 3.24
I'll have a look and try ty

TiffsAndAstro:
Himanshu Pandey:
TiffsAndAstro:
Tried meta guide yesterday but direct show drivers don't seem to work with my 120mm mini

have you tried the latest ZWO driver? 3.25 dated 2-26-2025

https://www.zwoastro.com/software/

Think mine said 3.24
I'll have a look and try ty

You'll need the directshow driver if you don't have it installed, its on the "Others" tab.

TiffsAndAstro:
Himanshu Pandey:
TiffsAndAstro:
Tried meta guide yesterday but direct show drivers don't seem to work with my 120mm mini

have you tried the latest ZWO driver? 3.25 dated 2-26-2025

https://www.zwoastro.com/software/

Think mine said 3.24
I'll have a look and try ty

i had older 3.24 but updating to 3.25 made no difference. appreciate the help though was worth a try

Himanshu Pandey:
Have any of you used both of these guiding programs? Which has worked better for you and why? What kind of mount do you use?

I come across mentions of Metaguide being better for EQ-6 tier mounts but it seems the majority people use phd2. As Metaguide works with video files it should have lower latency and if everything was equal should result in better guiding.

I'm going to try it hands on the next chance because I'm curious and 'll report on observations here.

Please share your thoughts.

I used to use PHD2 with my earlier Skywatcher EQ mount, but after having shifted to AM5N+ASI Air Plus combination, I am using witht native autoguide features of ASI Air. Both work well for me

Aloke Palsikar:
Himanshu Pandey:
Have any of you used both of these guiding programs? Which has worked better for you and why? What kind of mount do you use?

I come across mentions of Metaguide being better for EQ-6 tier mounts but it seems the majority people use phd2. As Metaguide works with video files it should have lower latency and if everything was equal should result in better guiding.

I'm going to try it hands on the next chance because I'm curious and 'll report on observations here.

Please share your thoughts.

I used to use PHD2 with my earlier Skywatcher EQ mount, but after having shifted to AM5N+ASI Air Plus combination, I am using witht native autoguide features of ASI Air. Both work well for me

Which I think is a version of PHD2 anyway...

Yes the ASI Air uses the PHD2 code without complying with the open source license under which it is provided.

Hello all, I was able to get Metaguide setup and connected to NINA and will test it out over the next couple weeks.

We need to use the Directshow drivers for our guide cams with Metaguide. This driver is different than the one phd2 is using to connect with the camera.

In order to connect Metaguide to NINA you must, within Metaguide's setup, check the box "Broadcast guide status over local network…" You also need to make sure the broadcast mask is correct for your network. Metaguide installs with the default mask of 192.168.1.255 and I could not connect until I changed it to 192.168.0.255 which is the range of addresses on my local network. NINA comes setup to use the same port Metaguide establishes at install, 1277.

Clear skies.

I definitely tried Metaguide, but my observatory computer did not play nicely with ZWO DirectShow drivers. It did play nicely with QHY DirectShow drivers and I was able to actually get Metaguide running with a QHY Guide Camera. That would have been great if I actually planned to use my QHY camera that way, so Metaguide was out, unfortunately. This is more of an indictment of ZWO's DirectShow drivers, though even that is unfair because they clearly work for other people using other systems. I am curious about others' experiences with Metaguide though. If they find they have tighter stars and lower eccentricity, it might be worth figuring out how to make it work with my computer.

Agreed with others that the user interface is…rough. Admittedly, this is a completely subjective take on it. I once spent 20 minutes looking for the emergency brake in a car, so make what you will of my assessment. If the DirectShow driver issue hadn't come up, it is also possible I would have had a different perception of the UI. Having already solved/not solved one issue, I then had to move on to how to use the tool, making it seem more complex than it might have been in reality. Having said that, the UI seems about right for a niche community of intelligent people.

PHD2 has worked stably right out of the box. PHD2 seems "simpler" and very much more intuitive, though I suspect that is entirely due to the interface. PHD2 does a better job hiding its complexity. A real test would require side-by-side, identical setups imaging the same target. Perceptions are one thing, hard data are another.

George

What guiding software do you use?

Related discussions