I suggest comparing to amber itself. there is good reason to think the
vmd/namd energy is wrong unless you carefully set the scaling factors.
the defaults are NOT right for amber force fields.
On 7/26/08, Alessandro Nascimento <al.s.nascimento.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wrote a simple program to read some information in the prmtop file
> and compute nonbonded energies (ele+vdw) from a sander/pmemd
> trajectory and I am trying now to compare my first test results with
> the ones from the plugin NAMDEnergy in VMD. For electrostatic
> computation, they match perfectly. For vdw, however, seems like
> vmd/namd overestimates the energetic contribution. Does anyone has any
> experience on comparing results between amber and vmd/namd ?
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> --alessandro
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The AMBER Mail Reflector
> To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
> to majordomo.scripps.edu
>
--
===================================================================
Carlos L. Simmerling, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Phone: (631) 632-1336
Center for Structural Biology Fax: (631) 632-1555
CMM Bldg, Room G80
Stony Brook University E-mail: carlos.simmerling.gmail.com
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5115 Web: http://comp.chem.sunysb.edu
===================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Sun Jul 27 2008 - 06:08:12 PDT
