Whoa! Graphisoft announce EcoDesigner energy evaluation tool

[Anonymous]

http://www.graphisoft.com/company/press_zone/ecodesigner.html

I see that Graphisoft EcoDesigner for ArchiCAD12 has just been announced!

Sounds excellent!

Will be very interested to see further details when released.

[Anonymous]

If software is all the time 20% off then that software is 100% accurate but is not calibrated. In order to compare solutions the software MUST be 100% accurate.
The energy calculation must be accurate. One compares many aspects: envelope het gain loss, shading, natural lighting etc. All aspect has to be quantifiable or one will make erroneous decisions.
Energy drives the design at leas this is being asked for. Architects have a choice: they learn to use the available others willing to perform will sidetrack tools of they. I just learned of a proposal ready to be accepted in the EU parliament that will mandate that by 2220 no residential permit be issued if the building is not energy neutral (2016 for public buildings)
I have asked Trane to comment on ED / VIP because Trane makes one of the best energy analysis software. Rest assured they do not care what one uses as long as you spec or accept a Trane. I am extremely interested on mining data from AC but the way things are ED error margin based on the presented info on this blog is inacceptable.

We are only as good as the tools we use.

[Anonymous]

Adalbert wrote:
In order to compare solutions the software MUST be 100% accurate.

Rubbish! There is no such thing as '100% accurate' in the real world. Do you honestly believe that every concrete block has exactly the same u-value as the one next to it? Do you think that every boiler produces exactly the same heat output as the previous one on the production line? Do you think the weather people can calculate exactly how much sun there will be over a year? When using average figures to calculate anything, the answer is only going to be an approximation. Close-enough is more than acceptable for the building industry!

I have asked Trane to comment on ED / VIP because Trane makes one of the best energy analysis software. Rest assured they do not care what one uses as long as you spec or accept a Trane. I am extremely interested on mining data from AC but the way things are ED error margin based on the presented info on this blog is inacceptable.

What makes you sure that Trace700 is so accurate? How accurate is any energy analysis software? How do you know that any of the figures you are inputting are accurate. They are all based on averages and assumptions anyway. Therefore any figures produced will have the same margin of error. There is too much variation in real life to be 100% modelled by a computer!

As long as it is consistent, I'd be more than happy to be within 10 or 20% of the 'real' figure.

I think you'd agree that it would be an interesting experiment to put the same data into all the different software available at the moment to see what the variation is between all of them. I'll bet you none of them are the same!

[Karl Ottenstein]

Karl wrote:
(Equivalently, that error rate might say that I would see an increase in energy of up to 10% even if I put in better windows ... which would not exactly guide the decision-making process.)

My comment above was lost in the conversation that followed I think.

The error rate is a +/- thing. So, if you see "X" for energy required, a 10% error rate means the actual might be 1.10*X or 0.90*X. (Unless by 10%, Mats means +/- 5%.)

Fast, but approximate results, are great at the design phase, when one is deciding on glazing amounts/types, building orientation, shading, etc. But, as I mention above, if the error rate is such that an improvement in the specs results in an increase in energy vs the prior design variant, then it will not guide the design-refinement process well.

From what I've seen so far, EcoDesigner is easy to use, fast and can be tailored to work with an office template to speed up analysis of future projects. I just hope that I'm misunderstanding the nature of the error rate.

Cheers,
Karl

[Rob]

In order to compare solutions the software MUST be 100% accurate.

In your dreams....

...and the idea to ask a developer of competing product for evaluation is at least really naive. You can't be serious here...

[Rakela Raul]

im with Peter Ck....no need to be 100%....but 500% innacuracy is kind of 'need an explanation', kind of.......maybe by hand or by eye and in 5 minutes of work, will yield very much the same results !!

No question that we can use this tool as the very least as a selling point in our profession. The thing is, what will it happen when ac13 is out ?? or ac14?? is it gonna be available on time ?? or we would need to keep old versions of ac to continuing the use of it...or once you are putting the tool to a good use, then discontinued ?? im trying to get rid of problems, not to buy more...

trusting gs selecting 3rd party software is another matter

[Anonymous]

OK 100% is a theoretical absolute.
But accuracy means for the same data input the same data output all the time and the results must be within industry standards in agreement with the results obtained by certified DOE methodology as to be accepted by the Department of Energy for "calculating and certifying energy saving programs".

There are many programs out there and thy all agree in results, so why this would not.

[Anonymous]

On a positive note I am very interested in ED but what interest me is how ED integrated with AC to what degree.


I would like someone from ED to compare ED with eQuest (freeware) and this because EQuest is regarded as the simplest and best tool for energy modeling where room-by-room breakdown of loads and energy use is not required.

http://www.doe2.com/

[Rakela Raul]

We typically use eQuest, as it is probably the most universal and accepted software in the US. However, there's quite a learning curve, and you have to do some research on materials to understand the choices. It may be more than you are looking for.
http://doe2.com/equest/index.html

eQuest the simplest ?? mmm not accordg to the above user it seems

[Anonymous]

Hi again!

First I dont want to comment software that I dont have had a good look at.
Many mistakes easy use for simple design and simple models.

I Myself did that mistake many many years ago when I dismissed a "toy" cad system for Architects that looked to good to be true because it was to easy to use and on top of that it came from a small company in Hungary. Guess if I had to eat that up! Mea culpa!

100% accuracy in all situations is impossible because we find new situations all the time and learn new things. Software that have worked very well under normal conditions flunk badly if the normal situations change. In Sweden many vendors discoverd that when glass buildngs became popular.

The same is with infiltration that in most international systems are handled like a constant. In reality infiltration is dependent on the combination of wind speed, facade size and direction, internal thermal, room height and ventilation system ( balanced, natural, exhaust).
With thicker insulation, ability to handle infiltration becomes crucial.
In Scandinavia if the software cant handle infiltration or heat recovery dynamically they are useless here.

With VIP-Energy we have not yet experienced any threshold effects when it starts to calculate wrong. The most extreme is two houses in Malmoe that have been measured in detail and calculated result are within a fraction of a percent in both yearly and houly values.
VIP-Energy has been used on super heavy constructions like medieval Churches and Castles as well as super light constructions like green houses.

Regarding ED I have personally seen a Architect without any instruction att all make a energy calculation on one of his own models in minutes.
Astonishing!

Mats Ola

[Anonymous]

Thanks Mats that was reassuring