[Halld-cal] Newest mcsmear change

[beattite]

I just changed the 'variation=mc' CCDB constants for the ADC_gains 
table from 1e-04 to 3.096e-05.  Now, a simulated 1 GeV photon at 90 
degrees will appear as a 1 GeV cluster energy.  At 5 GeV photon at 15 
degrees shows up as around 5.04 GeV at the moment, but it's looking 
pretty close, anyway.  There was a period of time between when I checked 
in revision 19023 and about 11:30 this morning where people running the 
newest revision would have had simulated hits in the BCAL returning 
strange energies.  Sorry if that affected anybody!


On 14.07.2015 14:36, beattite wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I just checked in some changes before the svn to Git switch.
>
> First, an updated shower curvature code is up
> (DBCALShower_factory_CURVATURE.cc) which just implemented a more
> variable (with shower theta) z-bin width.  It's gives a minor
> improvement in point acceptance (Revision 19022).
>
> Second, the transition from mcsmear outputting Hits to DigiHits.  Six
> files were changed here.
>  DEventSourceHDDM.cc and DEventSourceHDDM.h - Removed filling of
> DBCALHits from HDDM structure and added filling of DBCALDigiHits.
>  event.xml - Added declaration of DigiHits data structure (using
> pulse_integral and pulse_time as integers rather than E and t as
> floats).
>  mcsmear.cc and smear_bcal.cc - Converted final hit energy and time
> to ADC counts using some known constants (0.065 ns per ADC count for
> time, 0.029 MeV per integrated ADC count for energy) before 
> outputting
> to HDDM DigiHits structure rather than the Hits structure.
>  DBCALHit_factory.cc - Changed this a bit so it handles simulated
> DigiHits properly.  It'll set the pedestal to zero and
> n_samples_pulse/n_samples_pedestal to appropriate values so the total
> integral calculation reports the correct numbers.
>
> The 'variation=mc' ADC_gains CCDB table exists, as is populated with
> values of 1e-4.  Using this, the new code gives a reconstructed
> cluster energy of around 3.3 GeV for a 1 GeV photon gun at 90 
> degrees,
> so when we do the calibration, the gains should come out to around
> 3e-5.
>
> This second revision was Revision 19023.