Thanks for the explanations.
As I already said I have checked the parameters in all 3 programs and they are the same, to the minute.
In any case I have decided to drop the converse Distributions although it would have been nice to know which program calculates them correct and which one does not. They may be not have been used traditionally but there is a certain mysterious appeal to them. Just as converse directions work, converse secondary progressions (and converse solar arcs work) and some authors say for Kurios (Ruler of the chart) to take +7 days and others use both - and+7 days for planetary phasis.

Thank you to everybody for the participation.

What does "pole of the Sun" in Kolev's program mean?
Maybe you have select "under the pole" direction while in Morinus/Delphic Oracle the selection is "semiarc".

If so direction to the Ascendant are the same, but not to the planets.

margherita

I do not know what it means. The only settings for directions are "zodiacal or mundane primaries to the angles".
The program is for Ancient Astrology so I doubt Kolev would allow under the pole to be the default choice and not the major traditional Ptolemy ones.

Then again I bought Porphyry Magus 2 not for the directions and it only offers these, while as far as I know Kolev's other program Placidus offers all types of directions.

What does "pole of the Sun" in Kolev's program mean?

It is a bug of the program. It is not a real mistake-I mean that this problem does not apply to the calculations of primary directions, but this inscription appears almost everywhere in the header of every page with the final results.

margherita wrote:What does "pole of the Sun" in Kolev's program mean?

Poles are one of the more modern means of solving the problem of directing planets to other planets by generating a "horizon" for one of the planets to pass through. If Kolev is using a pole in the calculation, then he's not using proportions (at least not from any formula that I've seen as it wouldn't be necessary to use both).

Zagata,


Kolev used for direction Moon also its width. The results are the same as for Morinus or the Delphic Oracle. You must set for significator (only Moon) in Morinus(Delphic Oracle): Use latitude of significator.

Hi,

I think the results in Placidus, or better in in the Modul Porphyrius Magus 2 are all Ok.
You can see same results, as in Porphyrius Magus 2, by another program, which was created by Prof. Bezza and Marco Fumagalli, also by Ivano Monti.

Have a look to the screenshot:

http://www.screencast.com/t/P1PPSdC9

You can find more directions. I colored only some.

But the question of why there is the difference in the other programs, is still not answered! No ideas about?

Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,

The answer is above.

Petr

Poles are one of the more modern means of solving the problem of directing planets to other planets by generating a "horizon" for one of the planets to pass through. If Kolev is using a pole in the calculation, then he's not using proportions (at least not from any formula that I've seen as it wouldn't be necessary to use both).

As I know the program Placidus is divided on two modules:

- the main module- Placidus
- the supplemental module - Porphyrius Magus

They can work together or separately.

The first module has options for calculations of primaries under the pole, the second module doesn't has these options.

In our case we discuss the second module or Porphyrius Magus. This module doesn't has (as I know) options for calculations of primaries "under the pole", but as a result of the bug (which I explained in my previous post) on every page in the header we see the inscription " POLE: Sun" before the results of primaries.

Petr wrote:Hi Wolfgang,

The answer is above.

Petr

Hi Petr,

Yes, you are right! - There was a time-intersection

Wolfgang

Problem of the program Porphyrius Magus is that the setting:

No Latitude, With Latitude

it does not work for the Moon in the calculation of primary directions.

Thank you for the help, Petr, I understand now.

I thought about it even before I opened the topic and the Moon has with or no latitude settings but it showed no difference. Now thanks to you I know that is a program mistake and of Kolev, who should have at least warned about this.

Thanks for another screenshot, Wolfgang.