I have searched around for information on whether Ecodesigner will give realistic results if I model a building using real-world elements. That is to say, if I model a timber-frame house with insulation panels, services void, breather cavity, etc. would Ecodesigner give a different result compared to modelling with simplified ArchiCAD composite walls? The same applies to a steel-framed building with insulation panels etc. Before anyone asks why I don't just use composites, it's because we are really going down the virtual-building route to create realistic bills of materials, cutting shedules, construction phases etc.
A related question is to do with doors and windows. As ArchiCAD doors and windows are linked to their 'walls', and if I'm not modelling the walls, but rather the components that make up the walls, then I'd need a work-around. At the moment I make a 'dummy' wall of air-space material the exact dimension of the door/window, then place the door/window so that none of the wall is visible. I'm not sure if I continue with this method whether I should replace the 'air space' material with something that has the same average u-value as the window?
As far as I understand, the zone surfaces must touch a building object for Ecodesigner to include it in the calculation. Is this limited to the 'standard' ArchiCAD building elements, or would any old Morph, object do?
Thanks for your help!
ArchiCAD 17 | InterPro | Intel i7-4790K | 32GB RAM | Nvidia Quadro K2200 4GB | Windows 10 Pro
Global Ecodesigner calculation should be more accurate with 'real life' objects, as it works with the real 3D geometry and not with mathematical simplifications as in 'professional' energy simulation packages. Haven't tested this out though.
What has been researched and proven, is that the Thermal Bridge simulation is as accurate as e.g. Bisco and Trisco (when using walls as simple as the 'blocks' within these programs) and - furterhermore - is more exact when using detailled drawings for analyses...