Re: [gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction

2007-06-14 Thread David van der Spoel
WU Yanbin wrote: Hi, David, Then it will be quite slow using potential table compared if I used the LJ or Buckingham function, right? Yours Sincerely, WU Yanbin It is slower than LJ, but not (much) slower

[gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction

2007-06-14 Thread WU Yanbin
08:21:36 +0200 From: David van der Spoel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction To: Discussion list for GROMACS users < gmx-users@gromacs.org> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/

[gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction

2007-06-14 Thread WU Yanbin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction To: Discussion list for GROMACS users Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed WU Yanbin wrote: > Hi, Every

Re: [gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction

2007-06-13 Thread David van der Spoel
WU Yanbin wrote: Hi, Everybody, And I found that if this simulation is on gromacs3.3, the warning becomes error. Yours Sincerely, indeed, since this is not implemented. you canhowever use table potentials that differe betw

[gmx-users] Re: Warning when using both LJ and Buckingham non-bonded interaction

2007-06-13 Thread WU Yanbin
Hi, Everybody, And I found that if this simulation is on gromacs3.3, the warning becomes error. Yours Sincerely, WU Yanbin Message: 7 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:35:42 -0500 From: "WU Yanbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [gmx-users]