I am working with star formation data using TNG100-1 and TNG300-1.
I am aware that there is a discrepancy between stellar-halo mass relations in these simulations and that there is a relatively straightforward correction to the TNG300 masses, explained in Annalisa's paper, appendix A1. I am now working with stellar metallicities, and I am trying to determine whether there is a similar discrepancy between the mass-metallicity relations in the two simulations, and if so, whether I can make a similar correction.
So far, I haven't noticed much difference between the two, but I wanted to be certain of this. Admittedly, I don't have much information on how stellar metallicity measurement is influenced by the mass resolution of the simulation, and would appreciate your insight.
You can use the Plot Group Catalog tool and set the y-axis to Z_stars, and switch between two simulations with different resolutions, e.g. TNG100-1 and TNG100-2 (equal to TNG300-1).
To me it looks that TNG300-1 will be lower than TNG100-1 (which makes sense, given that stellar masses are also lower). The effect seems to be about ~0.05 dex or so.