Hi Warren, 

I think both plans for default values of smooth_loops and ribbon sampling are 
good ones.  This reminds me of a question I had yesterday while working in 
PyMOL 0.93 -- if I want to use ribbon_sampling values unequal to 1, should I 
downgrade to an earlier PyMOL (e.g., 0.92)??   

Thanks for any advice, 
   Cameron


> PyMOL Users:
> 
> Regarding default setting:.
> 
> 1) How many people will object if I change PyMOL's default cartoon settings
> so that loops are not initially smoothed?  (cartoon_smooth_loop = off by
> default)
> 
> The reasoning behind this is that gross smoothing is really only appropriate
> for publication-quality illustration of large structures, but increasingly
> people are using PyMOL as a tool for visualizing & animating molecular
> structures and interactions in real time.  
> 
> Having smooth_loops on as a default means that the cartoons are not
> representative of the true backbone coordinates, which is a source of
> confusion for some and consternation for others.
> 
> This change will affect existing scripts, but not session files. All you
> would need to do is add "set cartoon_smooth_loops = on" to your script in
> order to recover the prior behavior.
> 
> 2) How many people will object if I change PyMOL's default ribbon sampling
> to 1 -- so that by default ribbon is essentially a C-alpha trace.  Due to a
> bug in 0.93, this was a locked seting anyway, so any recent scripts probably
> already make this assumption. 
> 
> Here is the reasoning is different:  Ribbon is often used for getting a
> simplified idea of the overall protein fold, and to identify regions of
> interest.  Only with ribbon sampling = 1 can you identify the location of
> the CA position on the ribbon.  Otherwise it visually ambiguous unless you
> have other representations visible.
> 
> By the way, use of ribbon under cartoons to have a "pickable" representation
> is no longer necessary since Cartoons are now "pickable" using the mouse.
> 
> Please let me know if you have a strong opinion regarding either of the
> above proposals.
> 
> Cheers,
> Warren



Reply via email to