Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default filter for MICADO SPEC_3000x16 #132

Closed
teutoburg opened this issue Aug 28, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #133
Closed

Default filter for MICADO SPEC_3000x16 #132

teutoburg opened this issue Aug 28, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #133

Comments

@teutoburg
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, MICADO/default.yaml sets the filter for the SPEC_3000x16 mode to Spec_HK. This is in conflict with Ric's PDF, which in Table 15 states that this mode (called "short slit" there) is only combined with the Spec_IJ filter. For the other two modes, the current setting is correct.

In addition, I'm wondering whether there should be separate modes for the Spec_IJ filter in SPEC_3000x48 mode and the J filter in SPEC_15000x20 mode? Or do we keep the as the user's duty? This might be combined with a proposed new FilterWheelList and a list of "allowed" filter combinations...

@oczoske
Copy link
Collaborator

oczoske commented Aug 28, 2023

For the first issue, simply change the default to Spec_IJ. I don't think it's necessary to disallow Spec_HK within Scopesim/irdb.
For the second issue, I'm in favour of reducing the number of modes rather than augmenting it even further. Choosing a slit and a filter are standard configuration tasks for any observer, and some instrument knowledge can certainly be expected from serious Scopesim users. Ric's document is as good as any to provide that knowledge and should feature prominently in the irdb documentation.

@teutoburg teutoburg linked a pull request Aug 29, 2023 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants