I just checked a recent refmac job and it seems that in the output mtz the <Fobs> has indeed changed. what's more interesting, the number of missing reflections has changed too (disturbingly, it decreased so that the dataset looks more complete 97.07% to 97.17% in this case).
But if the same overall anisotropic B scaling is done every time, there seems to be no harm, right? Ed. On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 05:10 +0100, Frank von Delft wrote: > Hi Jay > > No, don't use the new one: the F's in there have been scaled by the > overall anisotropic B-factors. (At least, they used to be, a few years > ago.) > > > Definitely go with the old one, every time. The output mtz has the > coefficients for the maps, that's all. > > Cheers > phx. > > > > On 17/05/2010 18:26, Ian Tickle wrote: > > Hi Jay > > > > I always use the original, I only use the new one for maps& > > deposition of Fcalc etc. But I don't think it does any harm to use > > the new one, all the info is copied over. > > > > HTH. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- Ian > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Jay Pan<ccp4p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello every one, > >> > >> I am just starting to use refmac to do refinement. There is an mtz output > >> file each time. Should I use this one for further refinement or should I > >> use the original mtz file (the one after scaling)? Thanks. > >> > >> Jay > >> > >> -- Edwin Pozharski, PhD, Assistant Professor University of Maryland, Baltimore ---------------------------------------------- When the Way is forgotten duty and justice appear; Then knowledge and wisdom are born along with hypocrisy. When harmonious relationships dissolve then respect and devotion arise; When a nation falls to chaos then loyalty and patriotism are born. ------------------------------ / Lao Tse /
