You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The Unit Adoption quirks setting replacement_period_offset is very strange --- I introduced it, but I don't understand it. The observed affect in the test results is an off-by-one error in what year replacement units get put in. Different models need this parameter set to either zero or one to get the right results. I don't know if this is because the models actually have different calculations, or if there is some more other bug in the python code that this somehow compensates for.
If there is a difference in the models, then it would be nice if the extractor could test for it somehow --- it is the most mysterious quriks setting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, I thought that was the issue as well. Though the details escape me now, I convinced myself at the time I introduced the quirk that this was not the cause of the behavior. Of course, I may have been wrong :-)
The Unit Adoption quirks setting replacement_period_offset is very strange --- I introduced it, but I don't understand it. The observed affect in the test results is an off-by-one error in what year replacement units get put in. Different models need this parameter set to either zero or one to get the right results. I don't know if this is because the models actually have different calculations, or if there is some more other bug in the python code that this somehow compensates for.
If there is a difference in the models, then it would be nice if the extractor could test for it somehow --- it is the most mysterious quriks setting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: