2,684
edits
FAQ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→reducing WFAC1 below its default of 1 improves my data, right?
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
To expand on this: The default of WFAC1=1 usually rejects about 1% of all observations. If even more should be rejected, you should be able to give very good reasons for this: for example ice rings or presence of multiple lattices. | To expand on this: The default of WFAC1=1 usually rejects about 1% of all observations. If even more should be rejected, you should be able to give very good reasons for this: for example ice rings or presence of multiple lattices. | ||
Personally, I have never reduced WFAC1 below 1, but | Personally, I have never reduced WFAC1 below 1, but [[2QVO.xds|sometimes]] find that increasing it gives me better data. | ||
=== Can one apply the corrections in CORRECT without deleting outliers (i.e. preparing for a later program e.g. SCALA to do outlier rejection)? === | === Can one apply the corrections in CORRECT without deleting outliers (i.e. preparing for a later program e.g. SCALA to do outlier rejection)? === | ||