Model of London forces and Hydrogen Bonding; the question is carried on forward, partially, as a personal question, from another question [closed]

Question

Does Model of London forces and Hydrogen Bonding are themselves complicated and require multiple sub-models and assisted theories to explain its correctness.

I asked this question in the form (ironically) of a question, but I came up a new doubt later on. Just read below:

[" Lighthart says, "The actual magnitude is somewhat difficult to measure (and frequently dynamically changing due to molecular motion), but their existence is used to describe non-covalent bonding interactions between molecules such as London forces and Hydrogen Bonding." So, does it implies that the Model of London forces and Hydrogen Bonding are themselves complicated and require multiple sub-models and assisted theories to explain its correctness. Can the statement "Now with partial charges the water molecule can have a dipole moment. ... So the gist is that ionic bonds and covalent bonds are labels that we put on molecules to predict behavior. Such models are useful in limited circumstances. But if we try to overextend the model it leads to wrongful conclusions." (quoted from text written as answer by MaxW.) can be used to strengthen my question's argument."]

The link to the site is: Partial charges in a covalent bond

Answer 1

If i underatabd correctly, Now a days when in molecular dybamics simulation or docking studies, to calculate everything requires precise knowledge of polar, hydrophobic, ionic and non-bonding interactions. We have models to deal with each, and each has limitations. With polar groups the issues are not so much the models, which have distance dependance and orientation dependance, but computer power. This is really what limits the models. Often solvent effects and hydrophobic effects are ignored or estimated and simplified.

If there is a model missing is a hydrophobicity model. There isn't anything that is super.