distance/angle measurement in movies

Logged In: YES
user_id=337746

I miss the same - or do we overlook something?

Logged In: YES
user_id=905185

I only got involved with Jmol after version 4, so I don't know what was
possible then. I believe that currently that is indeed not possible (so you
aren't overlooking anything).

The reason may be the following (I don't know, maybe Miguel can
elaborate). There is no reason to assume (nor inform Jmol) that the models
in each frame are representations of the same molecules or even the
same sets of atoms. Thus the distance between atoms 1 and 2 in one
frame could be that between Fe and Cl, while in another one between C
and H.

I agree that probably in a lot of cases of output from calculations or
simulations each frame contains the same atoms in the same order. I
have come across cases where I wished I could do exactly what you are
asking for.

Rene

Logged In: YES
user_id=1082841

There seems merit in this request.
With the newly introduced capability to designate
atom selection sets for monitor, one could definitely
imagine:

monitor (atomno=1) (atomno=2)

which would apply the monitor bitsets to ANY displayed
model, since these designations, without "and */1", do
in fact designate ALL such comparisons.

The current prototype at
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/jmol/test/json/

interprets:

monitor (atomno=1) (atomno=2)

as "monitor the distance between the FIRST occurance of
"(atomno=1)" and the FIRST occurance of "(atomno=2)"

so that would be in the first model.
But it wouldn't have to....

The question becomes how to distinguish this from
cross-model measurements, which is also possible
now and potentially very useful:

monitor (atomno=1 and */1) (atomno=1 and */2)

but I think this is doable. We could, for example,
create the option ALL:

monitor ALL (atomno=1) (atomno=2)

which would imply first occurance "in all models".

One question, then, would be if the full generalization
would not be restricted to only one measurement per model:

monitor ALL (carbon and within(1.5, oxygen) (oxygen and
within(1.5, carbon)

might throw up a measurement for all such sets.

Of course, doing something silly like

monitor ALL (all) (all)

would give quite a mess, but that's not a real problem.

I think we'd need the implied condition with ALL that the
monitored atoms are in the SAME model, but beyond that, I
see no serious difficulty implementing this.

Is there a hard limit on the number of displayed measurements?

Bob Hanson

Logged In: YES
user_id=1082841

you've got it.

monitor ALL (atom expr) (atom expr) .....

see
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/jmol/test/json/measure.htm