Hi Jan, Always worth a try is to process the data in P1 then assigning the symmetry in CORRECT - that way the cell constants can refine to what they want to. It also means you can check that the symmetry actually is cubic.
For the majority of data sets in my experience it makes little difference whether you assign the lattice constraints during integration, unless they're wrong. Cheers, Graeme 2009/10/8 Jan Abendroth <jan.abendr...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, > I am running into a strange behaviour fo xds for a primitive cubic data set. > Neither in the INTEGRATE nor in the CORRECT step the cell parameters are > refined and stay exactly at the value specified in XDS.INP. R-factors and > I/sigmas of the XSCALE run look suspiciously high/low. When I reduce the > symmetry to tetragonal and run an otherwise identical XDS.INP script, the > cell parameters are refined again. > Any ideas? > Thanks a bunch > Jan > -- > Jan Abendroth > deCODE biostructures > Seattle / Bainbridge Island WA, USA > work: JAbendroth_at_decode.is > home: Jan.Abendroth_at_gmail.com > > > >
