Dear Dennis,
As Elke wrote, some parameters were changed... I'm not sure but I think
that now definitions are even more sensitive to be specified
hierarchically. I would try to this:
phenix.refine model.pdb data.mtz params.def
where params.def are:
data_manager {
fmodel {
xray_data {
Hi,
If you indeed run phenix.refine --show-defaults=3 you will see that many
parameter names have been changed as compared to 1.20,
e.g. refinement.input.xray_data.r_free_flags.generate has been replaced by
data_manager.fmodel.xray_data.r_free_flags.generate
I haven't checked all of your par
Hey all,
I’m wondering if anyone has an example .eff script that works with
phenix.refine 1.21. My software package writes a parameters.eff file to be run
through phenix.refine, and it works fine with phenix 1.20, but throws the error
seen below with phenix 1.21 due to missing parameters.
Base
Hi Filippo,
try reducing the number of min_build_datasets:
pandda.analyse min_build_datasets=20 ...
The default value is 30 (you can see this by running pandda.analyse
--show-defaults).
HTH,
Christian
Am 12.04.24 um 10:00 schrieb Filippo Vascon:
Hi,
I am experiencing the same issue runni
Good morning Adewumi Adeyeye,
I'll look at the problem but I need the raw data. Please upload the *.h5
files from this crystal to some cloud service, and send me the link.
Best wishes,
Kay
Am 12.04.24 um 10:40 schrieb Adewumi Adeyeye:
Good day,
I am writing to seek your help with resolving
Hi,
I am experiencing the same issue running pandda with 30 ground-state datasets
and 26 datasets obtained in the presence of different ligands.
As already reported by Christian, the pandda run exits with "No shell
partitions generated" error.
Does anybody know how to overcome this problem?
