Eric, I know you've been interested in this for some time. My pleasure to finally implement a simple solution that I hope will suffice.
Dot density is based on a clever algorithm involving geodesics. There are 5 levels. But to save memory, we use only 4 of those for dots. OK, Try this. 11.6.RC3 has: set dotDensity [0 to 6] The number you choose (3 being default) determines the density at the various automatic cutoffs. This means that, for example, if you choose "6", then the highest level will always be used -- there will be no shifting; if you choose "5", then the maximum density will still be the same, but that maximum density will appear at a lower zoom. I checked this out with a small peptide, and I think it works pretty well. See what you think. You can see this in action at http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/docs/examples-11/new.htm Jmol 11.5.RC3 is at http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/docs/examples-11 Eric Martz wrote: >I have situations in which (at the desired zoom) the dot density is >too low or too high. > >I would like to suggest two ways this could be improved. > >FIRST SUGGESTION > >There could be an option to control the base density of dots. If, for >example, we define the default dot density to be 100, then I'd like >to be able to say e.g. > >dots 200 >or >dots 50 > >to make the base density twice, or half of the default (at all zooms). > >In Chime, such a dot density control (with exactly the above syntax) >is implemented. However, it is effective at only one zoom, since the >density does not change automatically with zooming in Chime. Miguel >Howard's innovation in Jmol of having automatic dot density changes >during zooming is a huge improvement. > >SECOND SUGGESTION > >It appears to me that there are three zoom levels at which dot >density is automatically stepped up or down. I think this is too >course. I think there should be twice as many steps for the zoom >range currently involved, plus more steps at higher zooms. > >I think the second suggestion should be implemented first. >It is possible that with finer step points, command-level density >control would be unnecessary. > >Bob, I would welcome some improvements along these lines and the >opportunity to test them. > >Thanks, -Eric > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge >Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes >Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world >http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >_______________________________________________ >Jmol-users mailing list >Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users > > -- Robert M. Hanson Professor of Chemistry St. Olaf College Northfield, MN http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr If nature does not answer first what we want, it is better to take what answer we get. -- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
