Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace HarmonicAngleForce with AngleForce (and likewise for bonds?) in SMIRFF #179

Open
davidlmobley opened this issue Nov 3, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@davidlmobley
Copy link
Contributor

We need to replace the HarmonicAngleForce SMIRFF tag with AngleForce, which would default to harmonic unless otherwise specified ( to allow the format to support other forms if desired), as per @jchodera discussion with Swope and others at IBM.

@jchodera - presumably we should do the same for bonds as well, to potentially allow support for Morse potentials, etc.?

@jchodera
Copy link
Member

jchodera commented Nov 3, 2016

Yes, I think we should generalize bonds and angles this way.

We should also generalize NonbondedForce to permit other forms (e.g. Buckingham exp-6, Halgren buffered 14-7, etc.).

@davidlmobley davidlmobley changed the title Replace HarmonicAngleForce with AngleForce (and likewise for bonds?) Replace HarmonicAngleForce with AngleForce (and likewise for bonds?) in SMIRFF spec Nov 3, 2016
@davidlmobley davidlmobley changed the title Replace HarmonicAngleForce with AngleForce (and likewise for bonds?) in SMIRFF spec Replace HarmonicAngleForce with AngleForce (and likewise for bonds?) in SMIRFF Nov 3, 2016
@davidlmobley
Copy link
Contributor Author

We should also generalize NonbondedForce to permit other forms (e.g. Buckingham exp-6, Halgren buffered 14-7, etc.).

Yes. I didn't mention that here, as HarmonicAngleForce and HarmonicBondForce are tags in the format which need changing, whereas the NonbondedForce tag doesn't need changing (I don't think) we just need to change how it's implemented. In other words, changing bonds/angles requires modifying our current code whereas handling other nonbonded forms just requires generalizing/extending. So I figured that was a separate issue.

(I'm working up a PR to the format spec which would address these issues.)

@jchodera
Copy link
Member

jchodera commented Nov 3, 2016

Could address #42 (versioning) as well!

@davidlmobley
Copy link
Contributor Author

On versioning - I commented on #42.

@jchodera
Copy link
Member

Addressed in openforcefield/openff-toolkit#86

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants