Hello,
Tim had a chance to look at this (he's now on the West Coast of the US so
out of sync in time) and said he cannot reproduce this, that all the
lower limits look sane when he tested it and that the maths part of the
system remains unaltered since 1.0.15. So he's requesting more details.
And he says that lower limits of zero are easily achieved by having a
fractional error of 1.0 and a lower dist limit of 0.0.
Wayne
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Christoph Brockmann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just tried to generate a first set of distance restraints and found
> some interesting behaviour: it produces restaints with "values" and
> "upper limits" way below the "lower limit" and the "lower dist. limit"
> in the setup. Since this worked fine in 1.0.15 I assume its just a bug
> in the maths.
>
> In addition it would be nice if one could set the "lower limit" to 0 or
> VdW, since the violation analysis now also seems to consider lower-limit
> violations.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Christoph Brockmann
> Division of Structural Studies
> MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
> Hills Road
> Cambridge, CB2 2QH
> phone: +44-1223-40-2261 or +44-1223-40-2042
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
|