Maximilian Linhoff
Maximilian Linhoff
> This is a good idea, but I'd like there to be a test for something like a FK5 frame and a SkyCoord also in FK5, but with a different...
The PR is labeled "bug", however, it seems this is more of a new feature (I put the changelog entry as feature). @eerovaher Should I change the changelog entry or...
@mhvk Maybe you can have a look If I made an obvious mistake with the rotatation matrices?
Ok, the rotation kwarg now also works as expected (the axis has to be `z` for the polar version). Still there is a 90° rotation where I am not sure...
I'd hoped (or at least that was my naive goal for our Field of View coordinates) that using both variants of the skyoffsetframe would produce the same "image", e.g. that...
> Or, perhaps more concretely, I'd guess that the coordinates of other objects relative to the origin would be the same as what you use in spherical_offsets_by and directional_offset_to. Yes,...
It does not really work, I think it is connected to the issue that the origin in my tests is not transformed to `theta=0, phi=0` but to `theta=0, phi=`. Which...
@Cadair Yes, indeed!
Okay, so this is our definition: > The other FOV coordinates depend on the alignment and orientation of a second coordinate systems (OTHER, either ALTAZ or RADEC). > > FOV...
Yes, we would need add a sign in our own frame. This is from a data format specification, and our implementation based on skyoffsetframe does not have it either. https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/issues/1843