-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
OFF-EP 0008 — Periodicity-dependent vdW methods and "no-cutoff" option #53
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great, thanks!
As a reminder, OpenMM's CutoffPeriodic
still uses a modified reaction field method unless the external solvent dielectric is set to 1, so implementations might need to be aware of this. OpenMM also requires cutoffs to be equal between LJ and electrostatics, but this is not something we should be worried about at the spec level.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me as well. Thank you! If Jeff approves we could actually get this resolved without meeting to discuss this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for putting this together @mattwthompson, I think this'll be an important improvement to the spec!
Could this be updated to explicitly say that PME is an allowed |
I'd prefer that be a separate proposal; I haven't thought through exactly what it would mean to support LJPME (#11 #50 #15 #18 openforcefield/openff-toolkit#989) and I worry doing it wrong the first time would be worse than not doing it at all. I think it warrants more care than tacking it on the end of this proposal. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. Thanks for pushing this forward, LGTM!
Thanks all for the prompt feedback! IIUC these are four approvals from the four committee members, and approvals on GitHub bypass the need for a meeting per se. |
Resolves #51 #7