Hi Derek
I strongly recommend comparing with pointless/aimless, *not* pointless/
scala (if you have the time!)
Scala is obsolete and was superseded by Aimless several years ago (I
think 2010, without checking...). I find that Aimless is not only much
faster than Scala, but also scales bett
Dear Kay,
> Concerning usage of programs, everybody has his/her preferences, but what
> could be simpler than a 2-liner XDSCONV.INP like
> INPUT_FILE=XDS_ASCII.HKL
> OUTPUT_FILE=temp.hkl CCP4 ! or CCP4_F or CCP4_I or SHELX or CNS
> and then running XDSCONV by running "xdsconv"? At least there's
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:50:43 +, Kay Diederichs
wrote:
>pointless is a good program, and I also use it,
to clarify: I use pointless for space group determination. I don't use it for
producing multi-record MTZ files, since I use XDSCONV.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:25:36 +, Derek Logan
wrote:
>Hi Tim,
>
>> I would actually recommend using pointless (or xprep) instead of
>> xdsconv. It is much easier to use and maybe even less error prone.
>
>I take the point about pointless but XPREP is commercial software sold by
>Bruker and co
Hi Tim,
> I would actually recommend using pointless (or xprep) instead of
> xdsconv. It is much easier to use and maybe even less error prone.
I take the point about pointless but XPREP is commercial software sold by
Bruker and costs €700 (as I remember), so is not really an option for everyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Derek,
I would actually recommend using pointless (or xprep) instead of
xdsconv. It is much easier to use and maybe even less error prone.
All your quotes from the output are perfectly consistent. The first
table tells you there are 190093 unmer
Hi,
I am a long time user of XDS (20 years this year) but all the same I find that
I have constant angst about losing observations because I don't understand what
goes in in the conversion steps to get to CCP4 format. I used to believe that
XSCALE was always necessary, and I always use it in my
