See http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/docs/examples-11/new.htm
35. scales for axes, boundbox, measures
# Jmol 11.9.12 adds optional scales to axes, boundbox, and measures.
load caffeine.xyz
boundbox ticks {2.0, 1.0, 0.2} # major, minor, subminor
measure ticks {1.0 0.2 0} format [%0.0f] {-3 0 0} {3
Robert Hanson wrote:
See http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/docs/examples-11/new.htm
35. scales for axes, boundbox, measures
# Jmol 11.9.12 adds optional scales to axes, boundbox, and measures.
load caffeine.xyz
boundbox ticks {2.0, 1.0, 0.2} # major, minor, subminor
measure ticks {1.0 0.2 0}
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Robert Hanson hans...@stolaf.edu wrote:
But I agree, the business with axes and tics and such is pretty far afield
of the core Jmol mission.
Not sure if ticks are must used in crystallography, but axes most
certainly... I also use the axes visualization in some
-0500
From: rgb r...@ellerbach.com
Subject: Re: [Jmol-users] what is Jmol for?
To: jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: 4b2960c8.4060...@ellerbach.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
It detracts from the time devoted to the development of Jmol more than
Well, it's certainly a way to get feature requests! (By the way, those need
to be actual feature requests, please.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=addgroup_id=23629atid=379136)
OK, just because it was so easy, I did implement changeable axes labels.
Simple as:
axes labels x y z
I thought
As interesting as it is to plot stuff I really don't see the purpose of
putting time and effort into making Jmol a generic 3D plotting program.
Maybe if its abilities and interface were perfected for plotting molecules
(large and small) then there might be some impetus to create Jplot (or
Rich,
Good point.
Yes, yes. I was just thinking the same thought this morning myself. It's
nice that the Sage community has caught on to how useful Jmol is for general
surface display. If the Jmol community, though, feels that displaying data
in graphical form is outside the bounds of the
While the plotting functionality may not be directly molecular-centric, I
don't see how it detracts from Jmol. If the program were to become
bloat-ware then yes, of course, that's a problem. For the moment it seems
to be constrained within the bounds of scientific functionalities that many
of us
Jmol is modular already is it not? As it stands now only portions of
Jmol are loaded initially then others as needed. Am I right about
that? If so it seems these graphing features could be pulled out and
packaged together. Then if Jmol needs them they can be loaded. If
Sage or anyone
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jeff Hansen jhan...@depauw.edu wrote:
Jmol is modular already is it not? As it stands now only portions of Jmol
are loaded initially then others as needed. Am I right about that?
yes, that is correct -- provided you load JmolApplet0.jar (default) and not
So perhaps we need to brainstorm on what features related to display
of small and large molecules we want to see added to Jmol. It is
difficult to think of some. Jmol is so full of features now. Or
maybe it is just my brain is too fuzzy from grading and this cold I've
got.
So what are
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Jeff Hansen wrote:
So what are things you can't currently do now or wish were easier to
do? I find it difficult to extract data, such as energies, out of
files. Probably just my neophyte javascript skills. But I wonder if
when the files are read in an
12 matches
Mail list logo
