Dear Clement, as far as I understand, SHELXL is compiled against the Intel FFT library. Before, SHELXL used direct summation. If there was any noticeable difference, I am sure George Sheldrich would not have taken this step, as he would have had to expect a flood of complaints. My guess is that the difference is not because of the difference between FFT and SHELXL. Best regards, Tim On 11/02/2018 05:01 PM, Clement Degut wrote:
Hi, I have (very) high resolution data, for which direct summation method seems to give significantly better map than FFT (i.e. visible hydrogen vs not). My main problem is that refinement got from quite slow, to barely not really possible to handle slow. I have 2 question from that : Am I looking at an artifact ? Meaning should at this resolution (0.84A for CC1/2 at 30% and good overall statistics) see extreme difference between map quality with direct summation vs FFT ? And if yes, can I speed the process compiling phenix with openMP on our cluster ? Or shoul I just become patient ?
Many thanks
Clément
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb Unsubscribe: [email protected]
-- -- Paul Scherrer Institut Tim Gruene - persoenlich - OSUA/204 Forschungsstrasse 111 CH-5232 Villigen PSI phone: +41 (0)56 310 5297 GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A