Details
-
Type:
Improvement
-
Status: Done
-
Resolution: Done
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: ts_auxiliary_telescope
-
Labels:
-
Story Points:2
-
Epic Link:
-
Sprint:TSSW Sprint - Mar 04 - Mar 16
-
Team:Telescope and Site
Description
We have agreed to remove the azimuthDirection field from trackTarget command of ATMCS and make the azimuth and rotator angles absolute in TPC-163. This ticket is to update the XML and the ATMCS Simulator.
The ATMCS will also have to be updated.
One question: which is indirectly related:
- Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information.
MTPtg and MTMount should probably get the same treatment, but on a different ticket. Whether we actually do it depends on what the MTMount vendor says (they may have already coded it this way!).
Attachments
Issue Links
Activity
Field | Original Value | New Value |
---|---|---|
Description |
I believe we have agreed to remove the azimuthDirection field from ATMCS and MTMCS (though I am not positive about the latter). This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is likely computing it like that and then converting it to the present two fields.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I suspect this will be easy for ATMCS but I have no idea about MTMCS. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the azimuthDirection field from the ATMCS and MTMCS XML (which is trivial) * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMCS and MTPtg. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and MTMCS. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the azimuthDirection field from the ATMCS and MTMCS XML (which is trivial) * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMCS and MTPtg. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
Epic Link |
|
Sprint | TSSW Sprint - Mar 04 - Mar 16 [ 847 ] |
Status | To Do [ 10001 ] | In Progress [ 3 ] |
Description |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and MTMCS. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the azimuthDirection field from the ATMCS and MTMCS XML (which is trivial) * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMCS and MTPtg. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and the corresponding {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the azimuthDirection field from the ATMCS and MTMCS XML (which is trivial) * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMCS and MTPtg. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
Description |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and the corresponding {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the azimuthDirection field from the ATMCS and MTMCS XML (which is trivial) * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMCS and MTPtg. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and the corresponding {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from the ATMCS {{trackTarget}} command in ts_xml. * Remove the {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount in ts_xml. * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMount and MTPtg components. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
Remote Link | This issue links to "Page (Confluence)" [ 19925 ] |
Link | This issue relates to TPC-163 [ TPC-163 ] |
Description |
I believe we have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and the corresponding {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount. This is intended to reduce confusion. The field is completely unnecessary because the azimuth itself can contain the wrap, e.g it can be in the range -270 to 270 and indeed the pointing component is almost certainly computing it that way internally before splitting it into azimuth and azimuthDirection components.
Before we do this we need to be sure the MCS vendors and pointing component vendors are on board. I will wait to start on this work until I get a firm go ahead from [~tribeiro] or [~pingraham] This ticket is for the following: * Remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from the ATMCS {{trackTarget}} command in ts_xml. * Remove the {{cablewrap_orientation}} field from the {{trackTarget}} command of MTMount in ts_xml. * Update the ATMCS simulator A broader Epic should include updating the ATMCS, ATPtg, MTMount and MTPtg components. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. |
We have agreed to remove the {{azimuthDirection}} field from {{trackTarget}} command of ATMCS and make the azimuth and rotator angles absolute in TPC-163. This ticket is to update the XML and the ATMCS Simulator.
The ATMCS will also have to be updated. One question: which is indirectly related: * Should the azimuthCalculatedAngle field of the mountEncoders event be in the range 0, 360 or -270 to 270? We should make sure that the XML has the correct information. MTPtg and MTMount should probably get the same treatment, but on a different ticket. Whether we actually do it depends on what the MTMount vendor says (they may have already coded it this way!). |
Reviewers | Tiago Ribeiro [ tribeiro ] | |
Status | In Progress [ 3 ] | In Review [ 10004 ] |
Component/s | ts_main_telescope [ 16710 ] |
Team | Alert Production [ 10300 ] | Telescope and Site [ 13500 ] |
Status | In Review [ 10004 ] | Reviewed [ 10101 ] |
Resolution | Done [ 10000 ] | |
Status | Reviewed [ 10101 ] | Done [ 10002 ] |
Resolution | Done [ 10000 ] | |
Status | Done [ 10002 ] | Reviewed [ 10101 ] |
Comment | [ Merged to develop. ] |
Resolution | Done [ 10000 ] | |
Status | Reviewed [ 10101 ] | Done [ 10002 ] |
Labels | ts_ATMCSSimulator ts_xml | ts_ATMCSSimulator ts_atmcssimulator ts_xml |
Labels | ts_ATMCSSimulator ts_atmcssimulator ts_xml | ts_atmcssimulator ts_xml |