Hi, upgrading or downgrading is something I would like to avoid at this point, as long as I haven't more or less under control everything I'm doing. Probably I'd better download a trunk afresh (somewhere else) and check differences, before going on with an update. I know once it was working, but it doesn't sound good to go back, unless there is no other chance. thanks Alessandra On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Bradley T Yale wrote: > This is definitely not an optimal solution, but if you just want to do standard recon in the meantime, you could keep a copy of an older trunk revision (making sure the downgrade doesn't impact what you're doing). I found that revisions at least as far back as 1000 don't have that track assigning problem (trial and error), but those after 2040 do. I haven't tried narrowing down the range any more after finding one that worked, but hopefully that might help whoever is looking into it. > > Brad > > ________________________________________ > From: Alessandra Filippi <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:25 AM > To: Hansson Adrian, Per Ola > Cc: Bradley T Yale; hps-software > Subject: Re: Track Problem > > Hi all, > I dug the listserv mails to discover that the problem I'm having with the > reconstruction of Montecarlo data using the "standard" > HPS2014ReadoutNoPileup.lcsim and HPS2014OfflineNoPileupRecon.lcsim (unable > to find any track) is not new. I'm replying to the last message of the > thread... any news about it? > It looks like thresholds have to be disabled, at the readout step > (instead of using the TrackerDigiDriver driver in place of > TrackerHitDriver, which was my conclusion as well as Bradley's, as far as > I can see from his messages). > Can you tell me how practically to do this? > Thanks, > Alessandra > > > > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Hansson Adrian, Per Ola wrote: > >> >> Hi Bradley, >> >> I confirm that the standard chain doesn’t work. >> >> The problem is likely in the conditions. The amplitude for the hits are way too small >> and therefore fails the threshold cut. I disabled the cut and create the needed hits. We >> will update the conditions when we get some time. Btw., for info, this is in the readout >> sim. >> >> However, the recon still fails because the fits to the pulse shape looks weird and I >> suspect it just fails (NaN and infinite values in the shape fit parameters). >> >> Sho, can you look quickly at this quickly? It looks like the pulse shapes might be fine >> (just looking at a few examples). shouldn’t it work even though the gain is off or is >> there some other threshold cut in the fitter process? >> >> I attach a readout and recon file with thresholds disabled. (A’, 2.2GeV, v8-2pt2 >> detector). >> >> /Pelle >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list >> >> To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: >> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1 >> >> >> > > ######################################################################## > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list > > To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1 > ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1