Hi Vincent,
    
    
      
      I am very lucky to see 2 maps of the same
          protein, at roughly the same resolution, one by Xray and the
          other by EM (it's not that common). The details from the 2
          maps are however different... 
        
    
    wow, fascinating! 
        
      
     Here is my procedure, please let me know what you
          think: 
          - convert .mrc map to .mtz ; I get F, PHIF.
          - supperpose the maps: 
          map1: labels 2FOFCWT, PH2FOFCWT
          map2: F, PHIF.
          I also provided the 2 PDBs as it is clearly stated on the
          input files definitions. 
          
          It worked, with the 2 maps superposed that I can look and
          compare. 
        
    
    Ok, sounds good so far. Yes, this is what I
        would expect!
        
      
     However, for some reason, the superposition has
          been done on chain C and D of the crystallograhic model
          instead of chain AB (4 chains in the asymmetric unit, making 2
          dimers). Is there a reason there, choosing the closest
          structure, best fit? (I see that it is possible to define a
          superposition) 
        
    
    You can specify this manually!
    
     Another thing is that it creates a
          "supperposition in the middle", meaning neither on model1 nor
          model2 from the input, and not a crystallographic symmetric of
          model1. So I can't use the full crystallographic maps, I have
          a "simplified" version of it. 
        
    
    I guess this is the feature of current
        implementation.
        
        Pavel