From: Jim Phillips (jim_at_ks.uiuc.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2014 - 12:06:40 CST
There is nothing obvious to me. I can understand certain switching
options not being supported, so perhaps AMBER has a different default.
You can certainly remove the check and try.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Hannes Loeffler wrote:
> Right. So namd explicitly disallows alchemical simulations when amber
> is on. The error message is a bit weird though as it says that "AMBER
> parameters" are not supported. A particular parameter set in itself can
> hardly be the reason as it should be possible to introduce those trough
> the PSF or Gromacs .top route (although the particular functional form
> of the AMBER force fields may not be fully supported). I can't see
> any safeguards against this in the code.
> So, the question: why would the AMBER _force field_ not be supported?
> Apparently there are a few differences in the functional forms of the
> CHARMM and AMBER force fields which lack support for instance.
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:35:59 +0100
> Hannes Loeffler <Hannes.Loeffler_at_stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I am just looking through a few tutorials on how to do alchemical
>> relative free energy calculations and see that they are all based on
>> the PSF topology file format. I wonder if this is a requirement with
>> namd or a AMBER parmtop file could be used instead.
>> From what I understand there could be problems with the force fields
>> terms in the parmtop because the way it works in namd is to create the
>> morph pair as a single residue (and describe vanishing/appearing atoms
>> in an associated PDB file). But is it possible with a parmtop
>> provided the parmtop is created/manipulated accordingly? I guess
>> this all boils down to how namd generates the force field terms
>> internally for the two mutated molecules/fragments.
>> Many thanks,
> Scanned by iCritical.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Dec 31 2015 - 23:21:26 CST