Tarek Hassan

@javierrico I think it is a great idea. Maybe the person that already opened a pull request should do it? :D As always, I would be pragmatic: first try to...

Dear @cdeil and @jknodlseder Sorry to re-open an old issue, but today I bumped with it again, and I must say I don't see the current axis order making much...

> I think basically the order doesn't matter, and we should just stick with what we have now But below you say that different order will not work for gammapy......

> Just because the Gammapy IRF classes need a bit of work. This is planned, it will happen in early 2019, but if you want to use VERITAS PSF or...

> These are used for the actual HDUs already. > > So I'd suggest HDUCLASS = `OGADF_PRIMARY`? I agree with this. >Maybe we should also include at least some header...

Going through the format used within the `CREF#` keywords in Fermi-LAT IRFs (also containing arrays), the way they store them is: Instead of @MaxNoe proposal: > HDU2 = RESPONSE/EFF_AREA/POINT-LIKE/AEFF_2D >...

> The use of optional header keys is always and thus already allowed by the spec. Right now, the only optional header keyword list I can find (although it's been...

Today @moralejo and I discussed about this issue, and the only plausible solution we came up with was to include the dead time per telescope directly in the MC simulation....

> If it is simply an energy dependent correction factor: why not keeping it separately? It would keep things just cleaner and more obvious (but your suggestion would also work)....

@jknodlseder @GernotMaier @cdeil @moralejo Did we converge on this? With an energy/FoV dependent deadtime, I see no easy solution to incorporate it into the DL3 unless we directly include it...