I recently implemented the noD-HQ protocol (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.1c01006) on our Bruker Avance Neo system (Topspin 4.0.9 using iconNMR for walkup spectroscopy).
Honestly, it was easier to get working than I expected. However, I dislike requiring students to type in the long shim command for 1H shimming on the unlocked sample. In fact, I would prefer to not allow the students to have access to the lock/shim controls at all under automation.
I thought I could resolve this using virtual parameter sets. After all, the instruction manual for iconNMR specifically lists LOCK-OFF and TOPSHIM as macros available to use within virtual parameter sets. So, my goal was to create a virtual parameter set for each protonated solvent in the table (see the S.I. for the article linked above) so students could just choose noD-hq WATER and then noD-hq ETHANOL etc.
However, the lock and shim macros don't work in the first macro field for the virtual parameter sets because those are run when the data set is first created and you end up getting errors because the sample tray is still rotating when it's trying to run LOCK-OFF and TOPSHIM. However, if you put it in the second macro field (AUNM) it still tries to run the normal lock and shim settings instead of obeying the LOCK-OFF and TOPSHIM settings defined in the virtual parameter set...
As a compromise, I edited the file in {topspin}/conf/intr/remote_spec/inmrusers/.shimopts and added a bunch of lines with the different shim options for each solvent (including convcomp since we're using a Prodigy probe). This isn't a perfect solution because the window in iconNMR isn't wide enough and cuts off the last half of the macro so the students can see which solvent goes with which line (i.e., they're still stuck looking up the o1p from the table and then choosing that from the list of options in the .shimopts file).
If the virtual parameter sets would actually apply the LOCK-OFF and TOPSHIM macros as described in the manual, this whole setup would be much simpler and easier for the students to use.
Anyhow, props to the Jakhar et al. If you ignore all my fighting with virtual parameter sets, this probably took 30 min to get working on my system and most of that time was spent adjusting my frequency in CF so that the solvents actually show up where they should (the magnet had drifted by ~2.3 kHz).