Thomas Nilsson

Since there has been very little progress on this more or less trivial issue, I took the liberty of creating a proposed fix (attached here as a diff file) in case it can be of any help to anyone. With best regards, Thomas Nilsson, IRF Uppsala edited 2020-02-21T10:45 CET: Removed incorrect attachement file, see comment below

Dear everyone, I was just made aware of a typo which snuck into my proposed "igrf_coef.f.diff" file which was linked above. One line, which added: +2020 F2=(year-2020.D0)/5.D0 instead should have read: +2020 F2=(year-2015.D0)/5.D0 Please consider using the corrcted "igrf_coef.f.diff" file which is attached in this message instead. And my appologizes to anyone who downloaded and used the previous incorrect verison. Credit goes to Nikolai Pavlov for catching this and making me aware of it, thanks again!...

As all of you may noticed, in my suggested patch (igrf_coef.f.diff) I simply followed suite in regards to only having the main-field coefficients of the IGRF up to degree N=10. This was done to ensure it did not introduce unexpected bugs in other parts of the IRBEM-LIB codebase, which I am not too familiar with, (in particual igrf.f). However now I must simply ask, why does not IRBEM-LIB take into account the full IGRF model which, since IAGA's decision in 2001 (which is referenced in text here https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02641.x),...

Since there has been very little progress on this more or less trivial issue, I took the liberty of creating a proposed fix (attached here as a diff file) in case it can be of any help to anyone. With best regards, Thomas Nilsson, IRF Uppsala

IGRF 12th have been superseeded by IGRF 13th edition

Avoid hard coded IGRF coefficents, read from text file in environment variable "IGRF_COEFFS".