On Mon, Jun 13, 2005, opitz.che.udel.edu wrote:
> Out of curiosity, would changing the atom type definitions from gaff to
> parm99 solve the problem also, or would there be reason that make this
> path unsound.
If you are using the gaff force field for the ligand, I don't see any easy way
to avoid using gaff atom types.
....dac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Wed Jun 15 2005 - 16:53:00 PDT
