All Figures

	Figure 1: A general scheme of our codes. The continuous arrows refer to steps which are performed inside the TRILEGAL main code and subroutines; they lead to the simulation of perfect (i.e. without errors) photometric data. The dashed lines refer to some optional steps, usually performed with external scripts, like e.g. those mentioned in Paper I, to generate catalogues with errors.
Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 2: HR diagram containing all tracks assembled for the solar metallicity. Our database contains similar data for 6 other values of metallicity. In the electronic version of this paper, tracks from different sources are marked with different colours: Girardi et al. (2000, black) for most evolutionary phases of low- and intermediate-mass stars, complemented with the TP-AGB phase from Marigo et al. (2003, and in preparation, magenta), massive stars from Bertelli et al. (1994, green), very-low mass stars and brown dwarfs from Chabrier et al. (2000, red), post-AGB and PNe nuclei from Vassiliadis & Wood (1994) complemented with WD cooling sequences from Benvenuto & Althaus (1999, both in blue).

Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 3: Intrinsic MV vs. diagrams that follow from our default choices of SFR, AMR, IMF, evolutionary tracks and spectra, shown for both the disc ( left) and halo ( right). In both cases, the histograms to the right and top show the corresponding luminosity and colour functions, respectively. Each diagram contains about 105 simulated objects.
Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 4: The same as Fig. 3 but limited to the disc intrinsic MK vs. diagram.
Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 5: Distribution of stellar distance moduli in the simulation corresponding to our initial calibration, in a conic bean towards the NGP. This is shown for 11 disc components of increasing age - at steps of 1 Gyr, as labelled - and for the halo. The top panel shows all the curves, whereas the bottom one expands the vertical axis in order to detail the profiles for ages younger than 5 Gyr. It can be noticed that younger disc components are found at lower mean distances (peaking from say to 12 as the age increase), whereas the halo stars are found with a nearly-Gaussian distribution of which peaks at about 15. The characteristic shapes of these distributions result from two competing trends in Eq. (1): the quadratic increase of the geometrical factor r2, and the almost-exponential decrease of the density with distance to the Galactic Plane.

Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 6: Number counts as a function of magnitude. The histogram with error bars represents the data from the 7 and 5-passband CDFS stellar catalogues (Paper I) with poissonian errors. The dashed and continuous gray vertical lines indicate the magnitude limits for efficient morphological classification, MAG_STAR_LIM, and the 90 percent completeness limit, respectively. For the J and K plots, at brighter magnitudes (J<16.5 and K<15, respectively) we add the histogram corresponding to 2MASS data. The smooth lines refer to the model results for a region of much larger area and hence better statistics, computed with the same binning (0.5 mag) as the data: they show separately the contribution of the halo (dot-dashed line), of the disc (dashed), and the total result (continuous line). At the top of the plot, we present the number ratio between observed and modelled sources as counted within the limits indicated by short gray vertical marks (the fainter limit coincides with MAG_STAR_LIM). Inside these magnitude limits, the comparison between the continuous line and histogram indicates the goodness of the model in reproducing the observed star counts.

Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 7: The same as Fig. 6, but now limiting data and models to the "blue subsample'' with , which is dominated by the disc at brighter magnitudes and by the halo at the faintest. To help in the comparison, the scales are kept the same as in Fig. 6. The comparison between data (histogram with error bars) and models (continuous line), inside the magnitude interval delimited by the vertical gray marks, probes whether the models correctly predict the number ratio between halo and disc stars (shown separately by dot-dashed and dashed lines, respectively).

Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 8: The same as Fig. 6, but for the several fields of the DMS (Osmer et al. 1998), whose are given at the top of each panel. The data (histogram with error bars) excludes the objects that are likely not to correspond to stars. The gray vertical lines this time indicate the DMS "threshold magnitude'' (dashed line) and the " limiting magnitude'' (also the 90 percent completeness magnitude; continuous line) as determined by Hall et al. (1996). The star counts ratio between model and data (shown in the upper part of each panel) is computed between the "upper limiting magnitude'' (16.0 or 16.5, depending on the passband) and the threshold one.

Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 9: The same as Fig. 8, but now limiting data and models to the "blue subsample'' with .
Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 10: The same as Fig. 6, but for the EIS-deep SGP data (Prandoni et al. 1999). The limits of reliability of the data were located, somewhat arbitrarily this time, at magnitudes 16 and 21.5 for all filters.
Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 11: The same as Fig. 6, but for two sample fields of 2MASS data: (the NGP), and . Lines have the same meaning as in previous figures. In both cases, the disc component is responsible for the bulk of the number counts in the model.
Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 12: The same as Fig. 11, but limited to the H-band and for a series of fields disposed along the great circle in the sky. Just the northern part of the circle is presented, since the results are similar for the southern fields. For the fields pointing towards the outskirts of the galactic bulge, and , the bulge population is clearly seen as an increase in stellar counts at , caused by the bulge RGB, which is not accounted for by our disc+halo model.

Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure 13: The several panels show our Hipparcos simulation (grey) versus the real data (dark). On the left panels, we have the MV vs. diagram of both samples (observed and simulated) limited to a parallax of  mas (apparent distance  pc) and an apparent magnitude of V<7. The agreement between simulated and observed samples is remarkable for most regions of the diagram. The lines in the right panels show the corresponding distributions of apparent distance r( top) and derived absolute magnitude ( bottom), for both the total samples (continuous lines) and the subsample of subgiants and giants (dotted lines). For the data histograms, error bars denote the standard error ( ) of a Poisson distribution, and serve as a guide to the comparison between model and data. As can be noticed, the simulation predicts about the same total star counts as observed, with just a 2.5 percent excess of model stars. Looking at the right panels, however, we notice a significant excess of simulated stars at  pc, a deficiency at  pc, and the obvious failure to reproduce the spike at r=45 pc that corresponds to the Hyades cluster. Moreover, in the comparison of number counts as a function of MV, there seems to be an excess of bright stars and a deficit of faint ones.

Open with DEXTER


In the text

	Figure 14: The same as Fig. 13, but for samples limited to an apparent magnitude of . Notice the increased number counts of stars with .
Open with DEXTER


In the text

Figure A.1: Errors in Hipparcos parallaxes. The data is in the lower panel, our simulations in the upper one.


In the text