moving to using dust_extinction models only#853
Conversation
|
Slightly different results are due to dust_extinction likely that dust_extinction has a more correct implementation of the dust extinction models. This is causing the regression test to fail as expected. Provides a nice demonstration of why only having one place for the dust extinction models is the way to go. dust_extinction is much more extensively tested than what we had in the beast from back in the day. |
|
Hi Karl, while I haven't closely reviewed this PR, I wanted to share a few initial thoughts. I completely agree with unifying the sources for the dust models and transitioning to a better-tested and well-maintained package! This will make the BEAST lighter and much easier to maintain moving forward. One feature I want to ensure we support is the ability to extend the dust extinction curves down to 54.4 eV (or 22.8 nm), either as an optional configuration from the BEAST side or by default from the |
2 participants
Closes #259