cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Design forum

Solar Analysis is not accounted in Energy Simulation (AC17)

Anonymous
Not applicable
It appears that Energy simulation in AC17 INT does not take into account solar analysis that was calculated for any openings in a project.

Test: as soon as you add a window to a south wall (for testing purposes the only window in the project) the Energy simulation ads a "Solar Gain" to "Project Energy Balance" tab, but it does not seem to be taking into account "Solar Analysis" calculated for that window.

Theoretically, (or at least according to the promotional material being distributed), after one calculates "Solar Analysis" for that opening, the "Solar Gain" under "Project Energy Balance" should change if this south-facing window is shaded by model geometry. It does not happen. Even placing a solid wall (properly recognized by Energy Model Simulation) inches in front of the window to completely block the sunlight and recalculating Solar Analysis to properly reflect total lack of solar irradiation makes no difference for "Solar Gain".

To make it clear, "Solar Analysis" works fine. It is the "Solar Gain" under "Project Energy Balance" that does not seem account for "Solar Analysis".

I hope this gets fixed, as this is one of the fundamental concept of solar design.

Thank you.
27 REPLIES 27

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
I'm not sure ... but I think the feature you're "missing" is not part of the Ecodesigner included within 17, but rather part of the enhanced (and extra cost) version called EcoDesigner STAR which has not yet been released:

http://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/archicad_17/energy_evaluation/
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Anonymous
Not applicable
Karl wrote:
I'm not sure ... but I think the feature you're "missing" is not part of the Ecodesigner included within 17, but rather part of the enhanced (and extra cost) version called EcoDesigner STAR which has not yet been released:

http://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/archicad_17/energy_evaluation/

Thank you, Karl.

I am well aware of what EcoDesigner STAR is and was testing it since the Beta came out.

I am talking about an inconsistency in a standard functionality of AC17 INT without any add-ons.

I hope this issue gets fixed.

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
EcoBoger wrote:

I am well aware of what EcoDesigner STAR is and was testing it since the Beta came out.
Sorry, had no way on knowing...this was your first post and without a real name or real location. 😉

"Normal" Energy analysis (17) does not include model geometry shading. That is part of ED Star.
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Anonymous
Not applicable
Karl wrote:
Sorry, had no way on knowing...this was your first post and without a real name or real location.
This is called "privacy". A sort of a novel idea nowadays.
Karl wrote:
"Normal" Energy analysis (17) does not include model geometry shading. That is part of ED Star.
This is a really odd.

So, when we buy AC17 we get a widely-publisized Model-based Solar Irradiation Study, but we can not use it, as it has absolutely no bearing on, again, widely-publisized BEM by being omitted from the Solar Gain calculations?

This still looks like a bug to me.
Otherwise, omitting Model-based Solar Irradiation Study from the Solar Gain calculations makes the Model-based Solar Irradiation Study sort of useless and it should, probably, be moved to the Ecodesigner Star altogether and not be used for promoting unusable features in AC17.

Thinking about it, we can do similar Model-based Solar Irradiation Study in Sketch-Up for free in order to see if any of the project's openings are occluded by the model geometry. Sketch-Up does not calculate and display the amount of energy coming through a specific opening, but as we established, AC17 does not ether.

Sad. I hoped to hear it was a bug, not a feature.

After all, it looks odd to be encouraged to use building occupancy profiles in basic AC17 where we can even calculate heat gain from human bodies and not be able to calculate Solar Gain properly. This does not sound logical.

Anonymous
Not applicable
EcoBoger wrote:
Karl wrote:
Sorry, had no way on knowing...this was your first post and without a real name or real location.
This is called "privacy". A sort of a novel idea nowadays.
Karl wrote:
"Normal" Energy analysis (17) does not include model geometry shading. That is part of ED Star.
This is a really odd.

So, when we buy AC17 we get a widely-publisized Model-based Solar Irradiation Study, but we can not use it, as it has absolutely no bearing on, again, widely-publisized BEM by being omitted from the Solar Gain calculations?

This still looks like a bug to me.
Otherwise, omitting Model-based Solar Irradiation Study from the Solar Gain calculations makes the Model-based Solar Irradiation Study sort of useless and it should, probably, be moved to the Ecodesigner Star altogether and not be used for promoting unusable features in AC17.

Thinking about it, we can do similar Model-based Solar Irradiation Study in Sketch-Up for free in order to see if any of the project's openings are occluded by the model geometry. Sketch-Up does not calculate and display the amount of energy coming through a specific opening, but as we established, AC17 does not ether.

Sad. I hoped to hear it was a bug, not a feature.

After all, it looks odd to be encouraged to use building occupancy profiles in basic AC17 where we can even calculate heat gain from human bodies and not be able to calculate Solar Gain properly. This does not sound logical.
I will look into this shortly, but If you believe this is a bug, Please log a support ticket to your local Graphisoft Support team and If you wouldn't mind, please share their feedback in this forum.

Cheers,

Anonymous
Not applicable
GSAUS_Kevin wrote:

I will look into this shortly, but If you believe this is a bug, Please log a support ticket to your local Graphisoft Support team and If you wouldn't mind, please share their feedback in this forum.

Cheers,
Thank you, Kevin.

To make sure this is not just an abridged version of the calculation engine under AC17, I ran the same test under EcoDesigner STAR B2 (AC16) with the same erroneous results:

Model-based Solar Irradiation Study is not taken into account when a "Monthly Energy Balance" is calculated under "Energy Performance Evaluation".

Placing a solid wall in front of the opening properly changes Model-based Solar Irradiation Study to display a blank graph with 0 kWt of energy being gained through the window blocked by the wall, but it makes absolutely no difference on "Monthly Energy Balance" calculations. You still get the full load of solar gain year around.

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
EcoBoger wrote:
To make sure this is not just an abridged version of the calculation engine under AC17, I ran the same test under EcoDesigner STAR B2 (AC16) with the same erroneous results:
I assume you've been reading all of the reports/discussion related to the beta. As far as I could tell, even through B2, shading by model elements was not yet implemented in the beta. Any further discussion related to the beta or EDstar should happen in the beta forum and not in public until the EDstar release...

Cheers,
Karl
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Anonymous
Not applicable
Karl wrote:
Any further discussion related to the beta or EDstar should happen in the beta forum and not in public until the EDstar release...
Certainly, Karl.

The original intention of this thread is to establish whether Model-based Solar Irradiation Study being ignored in BEM Energy Simulation is a bug in a production version of AC17 INT (ver. 3002).

On a personal note, seeing that AC17 Model-based Solar Irradiation Study correctly calculates the energy each opening receives from the sun throughout the year precisely accounting for the model occlusion (a humongous task in my opinion) and, then, clearly shows the final result for the opening in kWt on that same graph page, it is sort of strange not to see than number of kWt that is already been calculated with such an effort and precision being simply omitted from the general Energy report (a relatively straightforward task of subtracting the already calculated value from the total Solar Gain for the year and distributing it through specific months or weeks, depending on the settings), seems strange.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Karl wrote:
As far as I could tell... shading by model elements was not yet implemented
Apparently, it should have been implemented and available in AC17 without EcoDesigner STAR.

Anybody can visit http://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/archicad_17/energy_evaluation/ and view the very first video titled "Building Energy Evaluation".
Starting at 5 minutes 20 secods into the video there is a whole section that promises us that Model Based Solar Irradiation is, indeed, supposed to be in the AC17.

At 6 minutes and 39 seconds into the video the narrator happily shares with us: "Isn't it great? From now on you can accurately model the green environment of your project and you CAN BE SURE THAT ITS INFLUENCE IS DIRECTLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ENERGY SIMULATION."

Actually, no, we can not be sure, as it is not taken into account and it makes absolutely no difference on building energy simulation.

The following statement by the narrator at 6:55 into the video sounds even more confusing: "Actually, I am positive that our BEM model is the most accurate one on the planet."

Really? With no proper calculations for solar heat gain through the openings?

Thoughts?

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
I believe that that video is incorrect. 😞 Several of the things demonstrated in the video are clearly things listed as features of EcoDesigner STAR on the bottom of that page:
http://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/archicad_17/energy_evaluation/

I will get in touch with the appropriate people to clarify thing for us.

Thanks for pushing on this - we all need to have things clarified between the build-in Energy Evaluation and ED*. I hope they'll give us a feature table to give a clear, visual way of seeing the differences.
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Anonymous
Not applicable
Some of this thread is missing.

Is there a specific reason why messages about this issue were deleted?

I recall an extensive message on the subject from Laszlo Nagy (forum admin) that was here just a few hours ago, but is no longer available for reading.

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
EcoBoger wrote:
Some of this thread is missing.

Is there a specific reason why messages about this issue were deleted?

I recall an extensive message on the subject from Laszlo Nagy (forum admin) that was here just a few hours ago, but is no longer available for reading.
That's in your other thread AFAIK, although Laszlo's message there is not what I would call extensive:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=42804
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Eduardo Rolon
Moderator
Karl there was another post on this thread by Lazlo that got removed or deleted. Basically he went over the video and his conclusion was that it might be a bug as EcoB is indicating.
eduardo rolón AIA NCARB
Another of the forum moderators.
Macbook Pro M1 Max 64GB ram
OS X 10.XX latest
AC25 US/INT -> AC08
Puerto Rico, BVI, Miami

Vectorworks 2022

Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
Thanks for clarifying Eduardo. I missed that one - away from my desk (hurray). Laszlo and I have been in contact with product management and marketing to clarify the issues brought up by EcoBoger. He has done a good service for us all in pointing out potential bugs and also how the videos appear to be talking about 17 standard features - and that needs clarification. I can only guess that in the process of discussions, Laszlo decided to delete his own post while further information was being assembled.

Any of us can delete our own posts (the little 'x' in the upper right corner), so if Laszlo deleted his own post, he must have had his reason... which I'm sure he'll share with us when he wakes up. 😉
One of the forum moderators   •   AC 26 USA and earlier   •   MacOS 11.6.8, iMac Pro

Eduardo Rolon
Moderator
Karl wrote:
…Any of us can delete our own posts (the little 'x' in the upper right corner), so if Laszlo deleted his own post, he must have had his reason... which I'm sure he'll share with us when he wakes up. 😉
That was my conclusion too.
eduardo rolón AIA NCARB
Another of the forum moderators.
Macbook Pro M1 Max 64GB ram
OS X 10.XX latest
AC25 US/INT -> AC08
Puerto Rico, BVI, Miami

Vectorworks 2022

Laszlo Nagy
Community Admin
Community Admin
Yes, I made a post, then deleted it because I realized I should consult with GS before making any conclusions.
So, they are looking into this situation right now and we will be hearing something back soon.

About the videos on the mentioned page: work has also begun on that so that features relating to AC17 Energy Evaluation and features relating to EcoDesigner Star will be in their own category.
The aim is obviously to have in either category only clips detailing features relevant to that version of the program.

Thanks guys for pointing out these inconsistencies. I am sure with the final version of the page and clips it will be clear for everyone which features belong to Energy Evaluation available in ArchiCAD 17 and which features are available only in EcoDesigner Star.
....................................................................................................
Get Archicad Tips at https://twitter.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU, 48 GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), WIN10 PRO ENG, AC20-AC26
Loving Archicad since 1995

Anonymous
Not applicable
Hi Everyone,

I'm glad that I found this thread, because I had the pretty similar doubts with the EcoDesigner 17 Solar Analysis. I've made the research last year and something came up with the result of radiation. (I hope I can explain this clearly with limited English). Here's my method:

1. I create an octagonal box building which had 8 sides facing 8 compass directions;
2. On every side, I put a full height, full width window.
3. Then, for a basic requirement, I put slab and roof, as well as a zone.
4. I ran the SOP to operate EcoDesigner.
5. Inside the Windows Dialog, on the Openings tab, there is a Solar Analysis that I was focusing to, for Direct Sunlight Calculation and Solar Radiation Calculation.
6. I recoded all the 8 windows data, then I made the comparison.

The first issue appears on the West side window, in Jakarta - Indonesia, which has no radiation at all. This is so funny. The West orientation is known as the most feared side regarding the solar radiation in the tropics.

The second issue is, the radiation yearly chart always stop to indicate radiation above 12 pm, drastically.

I really hope there is a resolution for those problems.
If somebody here has some time to try my method, please share your findings with me, perhaps open another thread.
Meanwhile, I'm at risk to put down my research now, at least I'm pending it to publish them.

Gabor Almasi
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
Hi Riva,

I tried to follow your instructions to see what kind of result do I get, but the results seemed to me fine.
I created a similar model, set the necessary parameters, but the displayed values in the solar analysis window make sense.

Is it possible that I missed something?
Gabor Almasi
Product Manager
GRAPHISOFT

Barry Kelly
Moderator
RivaRivo,
There have been a few Energy Evaluation bugs fixed in recent hotfixes.
Make sure you have the latest update (build 6004) and try it again.
Barry.

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 25
Dell XPS- i7-6700 @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB ram, GeForce GTX 960 (2GB), Windows 10
Dell Precision 3510 - i7 6820HQ @ 2.70GHz, 16GB RAM, AMD FirePro W5130M, Windows 10

Didn't find the answer? Start a new discussion

Labels

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!