Is PixInsight turning their forum into a bug report and developers only place ? There seems to be only 2 or 3 sections that are still available, mostly empty and the forum rules pretty much says if you want help in processing go find it somewhere else.
🤔
I saw that the other day. Makes no sense to me at all.
When the PI forum went into maintenance mode, and given the existence of https://pixinsight.net/dev/index.php, I thought that they are going to pull the plug on from the forum. They didn’t.
As it stands now, the forum is not useful for 98% of users. While I appreciate that they spend resources to maintain a forum, this near-complete disengagement from users will hurt them in the long run.
I hope we can recreate an even better version of the PI forum community here on AstroBin. I also wish PixInsight the best as a company, even though I personally view some of their decisions as heading in the wrong direction. For some time they have mentioned facing financial pressure from competitors, which I respect. But it’s a pity they haven’t embraced the potential of deep learning tools and continue to rely primarily on their multiscale (wavelet-based) arsenal. Others are earning money by providing deep-learning solutions for star removal, noise reduction, and deconvolution. This saddens me, they’re clearly capable developers, and that market segment could readily be theirs.
I too think it’s a bad move. I understand not wanting to provide assistance on processing techniques but they should be the go to place for support on using PI and all its components.
The PI forum helped me with using grouping keywords in WBPP when working on my first mosaic. That kind of support they should keep giving.
Pushing users away while the likes of Siril or SetiAstro are evolving quickly seems like a bad decision if indeed they are closing the forum for user support
I also think it’s a pity. Although I understand their position
Where will you find those useful scripts developed by others, now?
As some processes lack documentation, help from other users was invaluable to me when I started that hobby.
These are hard times for a lot of people in the software world. AI has changed the landscape hard and fast which is destabilizing at its core. Since “anyone can write an app just by thinking about it”, to quote from a popular ad. PI’s core role could shift from providing the advanced tools to being a host workspace for them. It’s really what the platform is best at anyway and just might be the best path forward. They already host deep learning based tools like Graxpert and the RC Astro tools. Exclusive rights to the best of these tools might be the recipe for PI’s future.
I think PixInsight’s biggest mistake was not moving to a subscription based model. While I have not spent a single penny paid to them since my original purchase 8 years ago, I have to believe that they had to spend money on maintaining a staff, ongoing feature development and the like. It is not a sustainable financial model for them. Perhaps they want to stand on principle - but principles don’t pay bills.
Mmmmmm, that model has not worked out to well for Adobe. People REALLY hate it. I think if they did that it would just drive people to the free alternatives. I’m not sure there are any good options in the current climate but doing away with a big segment of support certainly was a bad move.
People might hate it, but they still use Adobe. And I would suggest to those people who hate it that they consider that Adobe is a company that needs to stay in business in order for them to keep using their product. As for flocking to competitors, those competitors will have the exact same problems. It is a fact that software of any kind has a maintenance cost. Salaries need to be paid to developers to write updates, fix bugs, and develop new features. A one time cost paid up front is simply not a viable model to sustain this long term, as the user base plateaus.
Well Adobe stock has lost over half its value since late 2021. I know there are many reasons for that and the subscription model started a lot earlier but, it’s certainly not an indicator of company health. There is certainly a lot of instability in the field right now. That said, I think a lot of customers see subscription models as a sign of corporate greed rather than a fair practice. I have no idea if that’s actually true and it’s certainly not something I want to focus on in this forum.
If PI were to go to a subscription model they would have to find a price point that doesn’t kill the business. That would probably be something closer to the cost of Sharpcap Pro rather than Photoshop. PI has a tiny user base, much of which isn’t made up of business based “it costs what it costs” users. That really amplifies any decisions they make, good or bad.
I have also thought PI isn’t getting revenue from me after the initial purchase. Maybe the answer is to charge a nominal subscription fee to access user support. I mean, I would hate to see PI collapse. So many (like me) have invested a lot of time and are still learning how to take advantage of it. I don’t want to switch and relearn something new. But I am really angry that the place I go to for help when I can’t figure things out is no longer there.
Even with their current model (charge for a version 2.0), they had many important releases which would justify as “version 2.0” and ask money for them. Wouldn’t SPCC or MARS (or even WBPP in the past) could be released as a “version 2”?
Another revenue stream is training courses and conferences. They currently have left training mostly to third parties, which I have no objection to. In fact, pausing software development to produce complete documentation could be justified as a “version 2” effort. And given their advocacy of the "documentary school of astrophotography" (https://wedoart.net/think/DSA/), they could instead offer their own courses and conferences to shape the astrophotography field around their philosophy and generate some income.
Die Launische Diva · Apr 25, 2026 at 04:49 PM
Even with their current model (charge for a version 2.0), they had many important releases which would justify as “version 2.0” and ask money for them. Wouldn’t SPCC or MARS (or even WBPP in the past) could be released as a “version 2”?
Fully agree. WBPP, SPCC, multi scale adaptive stretch, multi scale gradient correction - all of these are major upgrades that would justify charging for a v. 2.0 that I think many people would pay for. PixInsight is the defacto standard in image processing in our hobby. Its financial viability should be something we all care about. Consider that over the course of the last eight years, I have paid more to Astrobin than to PixInsight (not accounting for inflation)!
There is also a discussion re this at https://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/998658-pixinsight-forum/page/2/#comment-14637313
Chuck Schreiner · Apr 25, 2026, 05:39 PM
There is also a discussion re this at https://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/998658-pixinsight-forum/page/2/#comment-14637313
Not any more….
Yeah I just saw that. Wow.
Chuck Schreiner · Apr 25, 2026 at 06:35 PM
Yeah I just saw that. Wow.
Not surprised it was removed.
There were some rather wild speculations being made.
CN is quite restrictive about this kind of thing.