|
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2018-02-15 11:36:12
Size: 1238
Comment:
|
Size: 1228
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Description of known differences between SIXTE and eSASS = |
= Description of known differences between SIXTE and eSASS = |
| Line 4: | Line 4: |
| ''Code changes with time, so please include both the SIXTE and the eSASS version numbers to any comments, and please add your initials.'' |
''Code changes with time, so please include both the SIXTE and the eSASS version numbers to any comments, and please add your initials.'' |
| Line 10: | Line 10: |
| * TBD | * TBD |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| * TBD | * TBD |
| Line 14: | Line 14: |
| * TBD | * TBD |
| Line 16: | Line 16: |
| * TBD |
* TBD |
Description of known differences between SIXTE and eSASS
This page is intended as a place to document the known differences between how the SIXTE simulation code models the response of eROSITA versus the assumptions in the eSASS code, particularly within SRCTOOL.
Code changes with time, so please include both the SIXTE and the eSASS version numbers to any comments, and please add your initials.
Differences in calibration files
- Vignetting model
- TBD
- Effective area curve (ARF)
- TBD
- PSF model
- TBD
- Redistribution function (RMF)
- TBD
Differences in modelling the instrument
- (TD) Just out of field sources (SIXTE v2.1.1 - SRCTOOL v1.any)
- SIXTE generates counts for a point source only if its sky coordinates fall inside the detector footprint, however SRCTOOL assumes that sources just outside the detector footprint will create detectable counts due to the finite PSF.
- Therefore, if one uses SIXTE to simulate a source observed in an eROSITA scan, and examines the lightcurve produced by SRCTOOL, the source will appear to be too faint as it crosses into and out of the detector FoV.
- The behaviour of SIXTE for extended sources is untested.