14 Jul 2020 |
astrojuanlu | and also https://www.fatiando.org/harmonica/latest/ 😱 | 13:31:24 |
meuge | Looks good!! But we should take into consideration that the package is in the early stages of design and implementation. That's what makes me doubt a little bit. | 14:19:59 |
astrojuanlu | you're right, I'm trying to understand the roadmap with the authors https://twitter.com/poliastro_py/status/1283036325118119949 | 14:27:52 |
astrojuanlu | the authors responded - I think we'll have to keep a close eye on them :) | 15:04:14 |
21 Jul 2020 |
astrojuanlu | had some time to review the different repeating groundtrack algorithms from the information meuge posted, left a comment https://github.com/poliastro/poliastro/pull/984#issuecomment-661816355 | 12:09:07 |
29 Jul 2020 |
| daluar changed their display name from danlub to daluar. | 18:20:58 |
30 Jul 2020 |
jorgepiloto | Related with issue #497
While having a walk I though about the following: should we implement this under new poliastro.earth sub-package? We might create something like poliastro.earth.plotting in which a simple groundtrack.py module could be placed. This feature might enhance the use of the new module focused on Earth capabilities.
| 13:57:28 |
jorgepiloto | * Related with issue #497 about groundtrack plotter
While having a walk I though about the following: should we implement this under new poliastro.earth sub-package? We might create something like poliastro.earth.plotting in which a simple groundtrack.py module could be placed. This feature might enhance the use of the new module focused on Earth capabilities.
| 13:57:51 |
jorgepiloto | * Related with issue #497 about groundtrack plotter
While having a walk I though about the following: should we implement this under new poliastro.earth sub-package? We might create something like poliastro.earth.plotting in which a simple groundtrack.py module could be placed. This feature might increase the use of the new module 🤔
| 13:59:02 |
juanluastro | jorgepiloto I totally agree! | 17:24:34 |
jorgepiloto | Cool! I will add a comment in the issue 🚀 | 19:57:17 |
20 Aug 2020 |
| @raahulsingh:matrix.org changed their profile picture. | 12:46:46 |
6 Sep 2020 |
| @rocknpools:matrix.org set a profile picture. | 11:53:52 |
7 Sep 2020 |
astrojuanlu | meuge: I think I'll be the first user of the new ground-range functions you implemented! so glad to have them in poliastro already 😍 | 14:22:10 |
meuge | Amazing! If you any feedback as a user, we would try to implement it 😃 | 17:19:16 |
astrojuanlu | Download Screenshot_2020-09-07 Double target study - Jupyter Notebook.png | 18:00:24 |
astrojuanlu | hmm this is returning \Lambda_min and \Lambda_max, but I would have expected (negative, positive) in that case meuge ? | 18:00:46 |
meuge | I'll check that out. | 18:02:32 |
astrojuanlu | just in case, I used these values:
max_and_min_ground_range(480 * u.km, 50 * u.deg, η_center=0 * u.deg, R=6371.0088 * u.km)
| 18:04:16 |
meuge | It's returning \Lambda_max and \Lambda_min. Buy if you prefer, I can change the order or the returning parameters. | 18:26:57 |
meuge | Download IMG_20200907_152554_748.png | 18:27:04 |
astrojuanlu | woops! the order of the parameters in the docstring confused me 😅 | 18:28:35 |
astrojuanlu | it's a trivial fix then | 18:28:41 |
astrojuanlu | instead of amending it meuge , would you please open an issue in poliastro? I'll label it as "good first issue" and "hacktoberfest" | 18:29:02 |
meuge | Do you think that we should also change the name min_and_max_ground_range to avoid any further confusion? | 18:31:32 |
astrojuanlu | good idea, now it's a good moment because we didn't release yet | 18:48:05 |
astrojuanlu | meuge: you just gained write access to poliastro, if you end up opening the issue feel free to tag it yourself :) otherwise I'll do it tomorrow | 20:58:02 |
meuge | Don't worries . I am on it 😃 | 21:00:01 |
20 Oct 2020 |
| @raf:matrix.org left the room. | 18:47:14 |
28 Oct 2020 |
| @xionbox:matrix.org joined the room. | 23:27:37 |