Reviewer 1-Q4: mention other codes

[Steboss]

It is clear that any comparative study has to draw the line somewhere. Nevertheless, it might be useful to briefly describe NAMD's capabilities (though I concede it is a moving target). Further, it is not clear to me whether all recent developments in AMBER have been taken into account (e.g., the already mentioned work by Giese and York (10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01175))

[davidlmobley]

I would deal with this (and similar comments if they occur later) by explicitly discussing in the paper the need to continue this work by running benchmarks on:

• Additional codes (e.g. NAMD)
• Newer versions of code (e.g. more recent GROMACS versions, newer AMBER versions) and mention that this is partly why we've made so many files available.

[halx]

We clearly say that we use AMBER in version 16, so no newer code. I briefly mention that NAMD is dual--topology and thus "out-of-scope".