Dear Thomas:
Thank you very much for your informative reply!
Best Regards!
Denis
2012/7/26 <steinbrt.rci.rutgers.edu>
> Hi,
>
> > The post http://archive.ambermd.org/201002/0108.html </>said softcore
> > cannot use at lambda <0.01 or >0.99,
> > Does it support now?
>
> no, that limitation has not changed. There is some work in progress to
> make a new version of TI that would allow l=0/1, but it is not finished
> yet. However, I have never seen this as really problematic. The dvdl curve
> should be linear at both ends and you really want the integral over it, so
> using 0.01 or 0.00 as a fixed-point for numerical integration amounts to
> the same thing. Unless you want more than a hundred lambda-windows, there
> is no real gain from simulating in the <0.01 / >0.99 region.
>
> > If I want to get the point at Lambda=0, do I have to use "hardcore"?
>
> if you really want this point, then yes, you can not use soft core
> potentials.
>
> > Can I mix the result using hardcore at 0 or 1 and using softcore at other
> > lambda? In other words, at lambda=0 or 1, does softcore and hardcore
> give
> > out the same result theoretically?
>
> No! Far from it actually, the two approaches amount to very different
> potential functions and should not even be close in terms of curve shape.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> Dr. Thomas Steinbrecher
> formerly at the
> BioMaps Institute
> Rutgers University
> 610 Taylor Rd.
> Piscataway, NJ 08854
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
--
----GnuPG Public Key----
Key ID: 0x488C9571
Fingerprint: C292 D888 D713 4D13 57F0 C07D 16F3 10C9 488C 9571
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Thu Jul 26 2012 - 01:30:03 PDT
