Wishlist: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m (→Cosmetical) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
* CORRECT should print out MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS= , and the actual number of processors used. --[[User:Kay|Kay]] 13:55, 12 November 2007 (CET) | * CORRECT should print out MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS= , and the actual number of processors used. --[[User:Kay|Kay]] 13:55, 12 November 2007 (CET) | ||
* BACKGROUND_RANGE= should have a better default (e.g., the first five frames of the DATA_RANGE). The default currently appears to be 0 0. | |||
Revision as of 15:45, 12 November 2007
This is a collection of things users feel XDS should handle differently from how the program currently does.
It would be useful if a user who edits this puts his "signature with timestamp" (second button from the right in the menu bar above) after the sentence s/he inserts.
Important
- none so far
Would be nice to have
- A breakdown of Rmeas by frame number, as currently only available from XDSSTAT. --Kay 14:00, 12 November 2007 (CET)
- Templates of XDS.INP currently have
!EXCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE= 3.93 3.87 !ice-ring at 3.897 Angstrom !EXCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE= 3.70 3.64 !ice-ring at 3.669 Angstrom !EXCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE= 3.47 3.41 !ice-ring at 3.441 Angstrom !EXCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE= 2.70 2.64 !ice-ring at 2.671 Angstrom !EXCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE= 2.28 2.22 !ice-ring at 2.249 Angstrom
This list should be completed by lines for the ice rings at 2.072, 1.948, 1.918, 1.883, 1.721 Angstrom. --Kay 14:30, 12 November 2007 (CET)
Cosmetical
- CORRECT should print out MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS= , and the actual number of processors used. --Kay 13:55, 12 November 2007 (CET)
- BACKGROUND_RANGE= should have a better default (e.g., the first five frames of the DATA_RANGE). The default currently appears to be 0 0.