this must be wrong in some way as it differs from the other ALMA RSI which is properly coded so IDK what you did since its private but I dont think its a proper "ALMA RSI" per say
SerkanMANGA
⋅
@burgercrisis, you have said wrong, but you didnt say what is wrong ? any idea
burgercrisis
⋅
@SerkanMANGA, It just produces different results from all the other ALMA-RSIs. Since there is no open source code I can't say whats wrong or different about it, but I checked it against a couple others and they all had different results and only one of them, by reading the code, was straight up just an RSI with the MA replaced with ALMA and nothing else at all. So I have to go with that one being the best representation and since these two have different results only one should be the ideal code for ALMA-RSI.
However I will say the other one that had a bunch of extra code was MUCH more off then yours from the one with definitely proper code. I did actually comment before making sure they both had the same settings and after setting them up the same I found yours is almost the same but less smooth somehow, which does result in very slightly different peaks and thus occasionally slightly different divergences and etc