Enrico wrote:
As far as the free version of ED:
From what you are writing, I understand "EDbasic" is not validated according to any standard, therefore its output is worth nothing. It has been a commercial move of GS to include it for free in AC16.
In your experience (since I guess, you are working to develope it, right?), what is the error margin between "EDbasic" and ED*?
Many of our critics say that, but I strongly disagree with you guys regarding this topic. I usually answer this with the following metaphor: in high school at gym class there are two kind of kids: Most only do the push-ups when the teacher's watching. They're only doing the exercise to pass the class. Then there are some kids who do the push-ups for themselves - to get fitter, stronger. They don't care if the teacher's watching or not. It's the same with energy calculation. Most designers only do it to produce the required papers, but there are some who do it to actually design better buildings. Earlier versions of EcoDesigner and the Energy Evaluation feature in AC16 targets this (unfortunately smaller) group.
We have never found a case where EcoDesigner fails it's original purpose: comparative evaluation. Every time you improve the building, the result gets better. It's not for calculating the actual energy consumption - but yet again, none of the presently available high end simulation tools can do that for every building in every situation, either. There are simply too many variables (usage patterns, unexpected local climate patterns, natural currents, unforeseen HVAC behavior etc). Therefore, all standards execute some sort of performance rating after the energy consumption calculation - to put the result in perspective (compare it with a baseline case, local average, minimum required etc).
Of course, as a sustainable design expert, I bet you already are familiar with all this. Soon, GS'll release a high-end, certified simulation tool to satisfy our customers who require standard compliance, but in my opinion, the basic Energy Evaluation tool is well capable of doing most of the work that the detailed version can, but in a much more simple, convenient and easy-to-understand way. You don't need multiple thermal block simulation to evaluate single family homes, especially if they don't contain high-tech sustainable design features. You don't need a cannon to shoot a bird, so to speak.
Also, most people wholeheartedly believe that the local standard calculation method used in their region is always right. Let's face it: in most European countries the old, simplified, single thermal block manual estimation method is still legal. We all know that it's only statistical approximation - lightyears behind Energy Evaluation's one-step mathematics. Still, our users keep measuring our solution up to this, because the standard "must always be right". From the scientific point of view that's funny, from our software sales' point of view it's not, unfortunately.
Miklos Sved
Graphisoft Product Manager
