Hello, The T2-T3 matching is _not_ done with H1 and should/will not be based on any hodoscope stuff. I don't know what Pawel was referring to...now that I think of it, I seem to remember that he needed the y position of the hits (but don't ask me for what...). Regarding a module for T2-T3 matching, it doesn't need to be BrModuleMatchTrack, it's in principle much simpler than that...unless you want to create a BrMatchedTrack T2-T3. I don't know what the best is right now. But where do we need that ? In BrFsTrackingModule that combines FFS and BFS. Does it really require a module or a method as it is now ? The main problem is again dealing with offsets and widths of matching parameters. This would be the only function of the module: accumulate stat for fitting histos and saving the info. BrModuleMatchTrack does much more than that so I would not use it for T2-T3. Djam > I think this is because the matching is (and this is a VERY BAD idea, > IMHO) done based on H1 hits. > Or at least it was. I think that Flemming is right, we should have a > module which works just like BrModuleMatchTrack, but with no magnet. > On the other hand: > Is it possible to define a "fake" magnet which is just a plane in space > so that we could use the same module for matching? > I guess it is a matter of copying the matching module, or making a > weird magnet volume, or there is something I haven't though of... > -- Djamel Ouerdane ------------------------------------------o | Niels Bohr Institute | Home: | | Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Ø | Jagtvej 141 2D, | | Fax: +45 35 32 50 16 | DK-2200 Copenhagen N | | Tel: +45 35 32 52 69 | +45 35 86 19 74 | | http://www.nbi.dk/~ouerdane | | ouerdane@nbi.dk | o---------------------------------------------------------o _______________________________________________ Brahms-dev-l mailing list Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-lReceived on Tue Jun 15 05:04:46 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 05:04:55 EDT