Is anyone using Green Building Studio with Revit? If so, how do you find it? I know output is based on input but I wanted to see if people are finding it reliable?
Ecotect has a lot of probelms and the hardcore building engineers I know do not trust it for thermal simulations which is why I never used it for that. Basically what I want to know is:
Is green building studio reliable for rough initial energy calculations? (assuming I know what I am doing concerning inputs)
Does it have many 'bugs' like Ecotect does? if so, what should I look out for?
A few courses at UMN are now using IES (used to use Ecotech and Energy10). Can't tell you more right now (since I don't teach there anymore), but will have more info about how it's going tomorrow.
ps - it sometimes takes time for folks to respond to technical questions like yours - have patience and archinect will reward.
I'll expand this a little further into building science and ask if it's based off of ASHRAE 90.1, or some other (better) energy modeling method that's used? I'd also like to hear more about this!
Any luck with this software? (Caveat: I'm not an energy modeler.)
Someone once told me a general observation they made - building engineers tend to present a lot of spreadsheets as opposed to visualizations, and tend to trust them more. Software can have its bugs, but if it's all working off of the same basic underlying modeling principles, the output should be roughly the same, within a reasonable range of variation (barring huge bugs).
I don't think I'd really trust software until I knew what assumptions it was making - at least, not for something as highly variable as energy modeling.
a commissioning agent i know tells me that the trouble with a lot of the software is that some handle some aspects of energy modeling better than others, so there may be a reason to model one building in one package and another building in another package -- or even to model one aspect of a building in one package and another aspect of a building in another package. as i understand it, there is no definitively superior tool for energy modeling right now.
If it's anything like acoustical software, there are probably two or three packages that you would use to analyze a building, each with their own particular strength - plus some spreadsheets/other tools that you would use for other calculations you need, and a good eye for how to use which tool for which task (and knowing the limits and shortcomings of each tool).
Sometimes I worry about being replaced by a computer, but then I use the software and realize that expert knowledge is actually still really important!
For the experts out there: for energy modeling programs, would you be able to point out documents that look like this? I like to read them to determine what the software is doing! Bonus points for a literature review / model verification studies.
MixmasterFestus: I totally agree that the expert knowledge is totally necessary for meaningful energy modelling!! I tend not to trust programs that are too automated, the super experts I know do not trust Ecotect for thermal simulations because of the lack of control over the 'assumptions'. Since you can control the assumptions in green building studio, my initial thought is that it is reliable to the extent you know how to use it.
it is also extremely important to have realistic expectations and to know what out-put you are looking for. I am a sustainability specialist with modelling expertise but by no means am I a building performance engineer.. I am working with my new firm to implement energy modelling at the earlier phases of the design project to get basic feedback and to help gague the impact of specific design options. This process will help fuel the discussion with the engineers who will do the final energy modelling to get the really super fine-tuned results.
jmanganelli: Yes this is true... for exmaple Ecotect is really pretty good at solar access, overhsaodwing, acoustics and daylighting (with the radiance plug-in), however is totally not reliable for thermal/energy use predictions.
barry lehrman: thanks for the info.. some of my friends who work at fosters use IES and it seems like a really good software... I think for this stage we are looking for something that can streamline the energy modelling process as we don't have as much scope for it as someone like Foster's does.. which is why I was interested to hear about people's experience with Green Building Studio.. I did get a little impatient its true.. but mostly wanted to keep it near the top of the list to ilicit more responses.. :)
oh also... some of my colleagues in Europe use Energyplus... but none of the building performance engineers I know do.. they use something called TAS (which is what we learned in school) which is very good for managing inputs/assumptions
Of all the words I've heard being used to describe Ecotect's acoustics plugin, this is the first time I've heard 'good' ;-) Nice images, though!
Why not just use TAS? Is it overly complicated? If you have some scripting/programming experience, this is probably one of those areas where managing data inputs/outputs would help tremendously. Alternately, it could be that you are quibbling over small differences when Ecotect or some other simpler software would be fine for the purposes of your calculations - if the engineers are calculating it out to three decimal places and you only need to round up to the nearest ten, you probably have more leeway than you think.
You sound like you've wound up in a really interesting job (one that I think is where the direction of the practice is sort of heading), and you seem like you have considerable leeway! (Out of curiosity, did they advertise for a specialist, or did you make the position for yourself?)
YMMV on this one (it's helpful for acoustics at least, where I get the sense that the rules of thumb are not as intuitive as energy!), but if you do have leeway in what kind of things you produce for their use, I'd also suggest making some rules-of-thumb for the designers to follow (and subvert, once you teach them why the rules of thumb are not hard and fast). This way, they cut down on the number of energy models they need to produce, which should hopefully save some time (so long as they are good enough designers where the rules of thumb don't overly constrain their designs).
For example (again, not an energy specialist), knowing which direction to orient massing, or what kind of shapes work really well for certain kind of solar gain/loss (a proportion calculator, maybe?) could be rules of thumb. If you are using Rhino/Grasshopper, you could also make some scripts for them that would use the rules-of-thumb to calculate these things. This would hopefully cut down on the energy modeling time, since you'd have some built-in assumptions already (and assumptions they don't necessarily have to follow, being designers and all).
(I have never used Ecotects accoustic testing but was told it was good by a specialist... what have you been told?)
To answer your question I made the position myself (and it is really a side projext as I was hired as a designer). The office I work in is extremely dedicated to sustainability (they have several 'net-zero buildings) but so far have done ALL modelling out-of-house. Basically, I am trying to implement modelling and parametric testing from the early stage of projects that don't necessarily have a lot of scope for extensive modelling (ie building a new model in TAS or Ecotect or whatever). TAS is super expensive and for right now anyways, the firm wants to remain architecture and design without delving into 'hard-core' energy modelling. So pretty much I am trying to figure out the place for modelling and simulation in an architecture office. I feel strongly that there is a very important place for these types of skills but am also adamant that there is a certain level fo expertise required to understand/asses the results.
The rules of thumb you speak of thumb you speak of are also super important. Until recently, the majority of the firms' work has been in the Bay Area. Now that we are expanding both in the US and internationally, I am trying to implement basic climate analysis to inform initial strategies from the beginning. I find this step is easy to understand and the majority of these more general rules of thumb really are intuitive once people are reminded of them.
(At the risk of sounding condescending - was this person a specialist in acoustics? Ecotect does a couple of things pretty well for room acoustics - raytracing, maybe calculating reverberation time - but it's lacking in its calculation for some pretty critical other factors, and that's just room acoustics! This is to say nothing of other factors, like vibration or HVAC noise. Stuff that Ecotect does is fairly easily done by spreadsheets and simple graphical analysis. It does produce nice visualizations, but I've never had luck in translating the visualizations into actual results.)
It almost sounds like you'd want to look more at interaction between the analysis software and the design software you use - Ecotect or whatever could be a start, but it seems like it's more of a data-flow question than it is a specific-program question. Although, as part of the design process, finding software where you could specify the exterior climate data (what I'm assuming is the 'input assumptions') based on location. What is the magnitude of the difference for those factors that are being included in the software? It seems like even basic software should be able to handle at least some of that...
Green Building Studio
This one is for the eenrgy nerds out there...
Is anyone using Green Building Studio with Revit? If so, how do you find it? I know output is based on input but I wanted to see if people are finding it reliable?
Ecotect has a lot of probelms and the hardcore building engineers I know do not trust it for thermal simulations which is why I never used it for that. Basically what I want to know is:
Is green building studio reliable for rough initial energy calculations? (assuming I know what I am doing concerning inputs)
Does it have many 'bugs' like Ecotect does? if so, what should I look out for?
Is it easy to export graphics from?
thanks!
*energy
really?? nothing??
A few courses at UMN are now using IES (used to use Ecotech and Energy10). Can't tell you more right now (since I don't teach there anymore), but will have more info about how it's going tomorrow.
ps - it sometimes takes time for folks to respond to technical questions like yours - have patience and archinect will reward.
what about e-quest?
I'll expand this a little further into building science and ask if it's based off of ASHRAE 90.1, or some other (better) energy modeling method that's used? I'd also like to hear more about this!
Also:
Any luck with this software? (Caveat: I'm not an energy modeler.)
Someone once told me a general observation they made - building engineers tend to present a lot of spreadsheets as opposed to visualizations, and tend to trust them more. Software can have its bugs, but if it's all working off of the same basic underlying modeling principles, the output should be roughly the same, within a reasonable range of variation (barring huge bugs).
I don't think I'd really trust software until I knew what assumptions it was making - at least, not for something as highly variable as energy modeling.
a commissioning agent i know tells me that the trouble with a lot of the software is that some handle some aspects of energy modeling better than others, so there may be a reason to model one building in one package and another building in another package -- or even to model one aspect of a building in one package and another aspect of a building in another package. as i understand it, there is no definitively superior tool for energy modeling right now.
can anyone corroborate this?
If it's anything like acoustical software, there are probably two or three packages that you would use to analyze a building, each with their own particular strength - plus some spreadsheets/other tools that you would use for other calculations you need, and a good eye for how to use which tool for which task (and knowing the limits and shortcomings of each tool).
Sometimes I worry about being replaced by a computer, but then I use the software and realize that expert knowledge is actually still really important!
For the experts out there: for energy modeling programs, would you be able to point out documents that look like this? I like to read them to determine what the software is doing! Bonus points for a literature review / model verification studies.
MixmasterFestus: I totally agree that the expert knowledge is totally necessary for meaningful energy modelling!! I tend not to trust programs that are too automated, the super experts I know do not trust Ecotect for thermal simulations because of the lack of control over the 'assumptions'. Since you can control the assumptions in green building studio, my initial thought is that it is reliable to the extent you know how to use it.
it is also extremely important to have realistic expectations and to know what out-put you are looking for. I am a sustainability specialist with modelling expertise but by no means am I a building performance engineer.. I am working with my new firm to implement energy modelling at the earlier phases of the design project to get basic feedback and to help gague the impact of specific design options. This process will help fuel the discussion with the engineers who will do the final energy modelling to get the really super fine-tuned results.
jmanganelli: Yes this is true... for exmaple Ecotect is really pretty good at solar access, overhsaodwing, acoustics and daylighting (with the radiance plug-in), however is totally not reliable for thermal/energy use predictions.
barry lehrman: thanks for the info.. some of my friends who work at fosters use IES and it seems like a really good software... I think for this stage we are looking for something that can streamline the energy modelling process as we don't have as much scope for it as someone like Foster's does.. which is why I was interested to hear about people's experience with Green Building Studio.. I did get a little impatient its true.. but mostly wanted to keep it near the top of the list to ilicit more responses.. :)
oh also... some of my colleagues in Europe use Energyplus... but none of the building performance engineers I know do.. they use something called TAS (which is what we learned in school) which is very good for managing inputs/assumptions
Of all the words I've heard being used to describe Ecotect's acoustics plugin, this is the first time I've heard 'good' ;-) Nice images, though!
Why not just use TAS? Is it overly complicated? If you have some scripting/programming experience, this is probably one of those areas where managing data inputs/outputs would help tremendously. Alternately, it could be that you are quibbling over small differences when Ecotect or some other simpler software would be fine for the purposes of your calculations - if the engineers are calculating it out to three decimal places and you only need to round up to the nearest ten, you probably have more leeway than you think.
You sound like you've wound up in a really interesting job (one that I think is where the direction of the practice is sort of heading), and you seem like you have considerable leeway! (Out of curiosity, did they advertise for a specialist, or did you make the position for yourself?)
YMMV on this one (it's helpful for acoustics at least, where I get the sense that the rules of thumb are not as intuitive as energy!), but if you do have leeway in what kind of things you produce for their use, I'd also suggest making some rules-of-thumb for the designers to follow (and subvert, once you teach them why the rules of thumb are not hard and fast). This way, they cut down on the number of energy models they need to produce, which should hopefully save some time (so long as they are good enough designers where the rules of thumb don't overly constrain their designs).
For example (again, not an energy specialist), knowing which direction to orient massing, or what kind of shapes work really well for certain kind of solar gain/loss (a proportion calculator, maybe?) could be rules of thumb. If you are using Rhino/Grasshopper, you could also make some scripts for them that would use the rules-of-thumb to calculate these things. This would hopefully cut down on the energy modeling time, since you'd have some built-in assumptions already (and assumptions they don't necessarily have to follow, being designers and all).
(I have never used Ecotects accoustic testing but was told it was good by a specialist... what have you been told?)
To answer your question I made the position myself (and it is really a side projext as I was hired as a designer). The office I work in is extremely dedicated to sustainability (they have several 'net-zero buildings) but so far have done ALL modelling out-of-house. Basically, I am trying to implement modelling and parametric testing from the early stage of projects that don't necessarily have a lot of scope for extensive modelling (ie building a new model in TAS or Ecotect or whatever). TAS is super expensive and for right now anyways, the firm wants to remain architecture and design without delving into 'hard-core' energy modelling. So pretty much I am trying to figure out the place for modelling and simulation in an architecture office. I feel strongly that there is a very important place for these types of skills but am also adamant that there is a certain level fo expertise required to understand/asses the results.
The rules of thumb you speak of thumb you speak of are also super important. Until recently, the majority of the firms' work has been in the Bay Area. Now that we are expanding both in the US and internationally, I am trying to implement basic climate analysis to inform initial strategies from the beginning. I find this step is easy to understand and the majority of these more general rules of thumb really are intuitive once people are reminded of them.
(At the risk of sounding condescending - was this person a specialist in acoustics? Ecotect does a couple of things pretty well for room acoustics - raytracing, maybe calculating reverberation time - but it's lacking in its calculation for some pretty critical other factors, and that's just room acoustics! This is to say nothing of other factors, like vibration or HVAC noise. Stuff that Ecotect does is fairly easily done by spreadsheets and simple graphical analysis. It does produce nice visualizations, but I've never had luck in translating the visualizations into actual results.)
It almost sounds like you'd want to look more at interaction between the analysis software and the design software you use - Ecotect or whatever could be a start, but it seems like it's more of a data-flow question than it is a specific-program question. Although, as part of the design process, finding software where you could specify the exterior climate data (what I'm assuming is the 'input assumptions') based on location. What is the magnitude of the difference for those factors that are being included in the software? It seems like even basic software should be able to handle at least some of that...
TAS - is this trnsys?
ecotect seems to be on the way out w/ revit integration and vasari.
TAS: http://www.edsl.net/main/
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.