indeed, one of the main motivations is to be different from other tools that often make certain assumption and make choices for the user. It very deliberately (like VMD) is force field agnostic, and it depends on users knowing what they are doing.
#VMD TOPOTOOLS SOFTWARE#
Please also keep in mind, that TopoTools was not explicitly written for LAMMPS but for use with a variety of MD software packages. preparing a data file for use with ReaxFF using TopoTools is about the easiest conversion, since you don’t need to do any atom typing (just assign elements) and you don’t need any topology information (just write out the data file in atom style charge). So using this default forcefield to preapare the system and again using different force field (reaxff) to simulate the structure is not the wrong way to do? So I think I can not prepare ZnO lammps data file other than defining explicitly inside lammps input script. The VMD TopoTools plugin ignores the force field and only inserts commented out dummy entries. But here my doubt is when I am converting it to lammps data file topotools takes one of the default force field (which I dont know) which is not obviously reaxff. I have made a ZnO monolayer using vesta then converted it to lammps data file using vmd topo tools. I have a confusion of simulating ZnO monolayer using reaxff.
0 kommentar(er)
