I am going through Appendix A2 of the paper and I realized that we had only ever tested the seeing with m=1.2. So I have repeated the analysis of the synthetic velocity fields but with m=1, which is more typical of the values that we obtain from the fits to observations.
I am making this a draft pull request in case anything else occurs to me in the next day. If not, I will mark it ready to merge tomorrow.
Conclusion from changing $m$
The results are a little bit different with m = 1, compared with m = 1.2
The fit of the analytic function is better if we reduce from a = 0.75 to a = 0.65. But it is probably not worth adjusting this parameter in the fits.
I am going through Appendix A2 of the paper and I realized that we had only ever tested the seeing with m=1.2. So I have repeated the analysis of the synthetic velocity fields but with m=1, which is more typical of the values that we obtain from the fits to observations.
I am making this a draft pull request in case anything else occurs to me in the next day. If not, I will mark it ready to merge tomorrow.
Conclusion from changing $m$
The results are a little bit different with m = 1, compared with m = 1.2
The fit of the analytic function is better if we reduce from a = 0.75 to a = 0.65. But it is probably not worth adjusting this parameter in the fits.