[gmx-developers] Re: [gmx-users] Oh topology .. go away ...
gmx3 at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 10 12:39:33 CEST 2002
>From: Marc Baaden <baaden at smplinux.de>
>To: "Berk Hess" <gmx3 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Oh topology .. go away ...
>Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:41:36 +0100
>although you are hopefully enjoying your holidays, I just wanted
>to let you know that we probably have found another problematic
>The scenario is:
>[ atomtypes ]
>[ nonbond_params ] in ffXXXnb.itp
>[ atomtypes ] in another itp included thereafter
>Changing a parameter in [nonbond_params] of ffXXXnb.itp does not
>affect the topology. Eg the second atomtypes seems to trigger
>generation of LJ pairs via the combination rule as well.
I thought this is what I told you, but correct me if I am wrong.
There are two problems:
1) You can not have type definitions after a [ moleculetype ] header,
I added a check for this last week.
2) You should not have a [ atomtypes ] header after
[ nonbonded_params ], since all the previous entries in
[ nonbonded_params ] will be ignored.
I'll try to fix this this week.
These are the only problems as far as I know.
>This affects eg methanol.itp, flexwat-ferguson.itp which come
>with the std Gromacs distribution.
This is very bad indeed. I can understand if somebody didn't program
a check for some incorrect input, but not checking if the standard
force-field files are correct is pretty bad.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers