> The reason one may want to consider deleting a surface may be if it > turns out that having, lets say 10 molecular orbitals with 2 polarities > for each orbital (i.e., 20 isosurfaces) on one atomset, which one would > like to be able to turn on/off base on a javascript....
I don't understand. 20 orbitals == 20 surface -> 20 different names on/off > By the way, the isosurfaces only work on a single atomset (or frame). > Would it be possible, down the line, to be able to set up multiple > frames with isosurfaces and be able to animate them to see molecular > orbitals been broken or made during a reaction? I suppose that it would be possible at some point ... > At the moment the isosurfaces are present for all atomsets, but I think > it may make more sense to have one associated with a single atomset > (since I would assume that in most cases a different atomset would have > atoms in different locations and as such the isosurface of another one > doesn't make sense). Q: Are you saying that a particular surface should be tied to a specific 'model' ? Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
