To quantify the match between experiments and simulations, we compared the ionic conductivity calculated from simulations at experimental temperature against ionic conductivity acquired from experiments. Figure All three methods for calculating ionic conductivity perform similarly across the measured metrics. Only with a very few exceptions (CSSAX1, PES23, PEPC), the majority of the polymers fall below the parity line, which solidifies that the OPLS-AA force field underpredicts the dynamical properties of polymers. Comparing the effect of LPG or DFT charges on the quality of fit to experiments, minimal differences for the various metrics were noted (Figure ) To test whether the ionic conductivity fit to experiments can be improved, we employ the same strategy as Fang et al. They investigated a novel polymer poly(pentyl malonate) (PPM) at an effective temperature of 430 K, while experiments were performed at 363 K. This shift of 67 K was performed to match the difference between computed T g of PPM and experimentally measured value. Similar approaches have been adopted in other works as well. Computed T g offsets between our simulations and experiments in the literature can be seen in Figure ). We performed simulations on polymers in pure form and on polymers with salt, for which there are fewer experimentally reported glass temperatures.