why not use tan(angle) ?

[danieljeans]

Hi,

k4geo/FCCee/CLD/compact/CLD_o2_v07/InnerTracker_o2_v08.xml

Line 41 in 9e9c87f

<zplane z="-InnerTracker_half_length" rmin="ITEnvelopeClearanceConeHalfAngle * ConeBeamPipe_zmax" rmax="InnerTracker_outer_radius" />

wouldn't it be more geometrically-correct to use

rmin="tan ( ITEnvelopeClearanceConeHalfAngle ) * ConeBeamPipe_zmax"

rather than

rmin="ITEnvelopeClearanceConeHalfAngle * ConeBeamPipe_zmax"
? (the difference is <3 mm in this case, but for ease of understanding the code...)

Similar construction in few other places, too.

[andresailer]

Hi @danieljeans ,

You are correct, and as long as there are no overlaps I don't care about the precise dimensions of the envelope there. But you know #369 (comment) ...

So it depends how those inner tracker endcap inner radii were calculated and a few mm difference there could be painful...

[Zehvogel]

This also confused me before (but I was also not aware of tan() being possible in the xml...). We should probably improve this at some point.