Bob Hanson

Jmol.___JmolVersion="16.2.29" // (legacy) also 16.2.30 (swingJS)

Jmol.___JmolVersion="16.2.27" // (legacy) also 16.2.28 (swingJS)

Jmol.___JmolVersion="16.2.27" // (legacy) also 16.2.28 (swingJS)

This was fixed recently On Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 7:24 AM Andriy Zhugayevych azh4@users.sourceforge.net wrote: [bugs:#632] https://sourceforge.net/p/jmol/bugs/632/ Ignored sign in CIF before 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 Status: open Group: v14 Created: Wed Aug 07, 2024 11:24 AM UTC by Andriy Zhugayevych Last Updated: Wed Aug 07, 2024 11:24 AM UTC Owner: nobody Attachments: bug.cif https://sourceforge.net/p/jmol/bugs/632/attachment/bug.cif (994 Bytes; application/octet-stream) bug.jpg https://sourceforge.net/p/jmol/bugs/632/attachment/bug.jpg...

(1) This is not inconsistent. Indicating any sort of bond to an atom requires the presence of the atom. Whether the atom is made opaque, translucent, or transparent is not relevant to that concept. This does not change the number of atoms in a cell. (2) Jmol provides numerous ways to adjust for slight coordinate differences from ideality. All programs have this issue, particularly with file formats that do not deliver fractional coordinates in the form "1/3" or "1/2". Is "0.9999" on a face or not?...

Jmol.___JmolVersion="16.2.23" // (legacy) also 16.2.24 (swingJS)

This is a great idea -- basically a VESTA-like representation of periodic bonding. It actually has nothing specifically to do with periodic structures, other than that the unit cell boundary is often a place where we see such a representation. In fact, it is an error of the documentation, which reads: Currently implemented transclucencies are 0 (opaque), 0.125 (1, 32), 0.25 (2, 64), 0.375 (3, 96), 0.5 (4, 128), 0.625 (5, 160), 0.75 (6, 192), 0.875 (7, 224). * This should read: Currently implemented...