On 7/16/15 12:47 AM, sridhar dwadasi wrote:
Thank you for the response.
In case of an all atom representation, the connections are different. What
about a united atom representation? The g_x2top supports Gromacs 53a5
forcefield right?
If you write an .n2t file for it, sure.
Can we get a
Hi Dr. Justin Lemkul,
Thank you for responding again. I'm still not understanding it :(.
I'll try to be more clear. Taking the example of OPLS UA, we have
different atom types for united alkene atoms (-CH= and CH2=) and alkanes
(-CH2-). When I represent the connections in n2t file, the
On 7/16/15 12:57 PM, sridhar dwadasi wrote:
Hi Dr. Justin Lemkul,
Thank you for responding again. I'm still not understanding it :(.
I'll try to be more clear. Taking the example of OPLS UA, we have
different atom types for united alkene atoms (-CH= and CH2=) and alkanes
(-CH2-). When
Thank you for the response.
In case of an all atom representation, the connections are different. What
about a united atom representation? The g_x2top supports Gromacs 53a5
forcefield right?
Can we get a topology with x2top only for an all atom representation? Or is
there anyway to get it for
On 7/13/15 1:38 AM, sridhar dwadasi wrote:
Dear gromac users,
I'm using g_x2top (4.6.7 version), to generate a topology. The compound
contains double bonds. I have a problem in setting correct topology.
The C1 in both the cases -C1H=C2H2 and -C1H2- is being assigned the same
type, though I'm
Dear gromac users,
I'm using g_x2top (4.6.7 version), to generate a topology. The compound
contains double bonds. I have a problem in setting correct topology.
The C1 in both the cases -C1H=C2H2 and -C1H2- is being assigned the same
type, though I'm mentioning different distances in the n2t file.
