<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John Karaski,<BR><BR>I will try to address your
questions.<BR><BR>> I read your attachment. Thanks. I am confused
about one issue, though:<BR>> Since PowerDOE has a graphical interface and
uses DOE2.2 as the simulation<BR>> engine, where does that leave
VisualDOE? In Strategy #2? These seem to be<BR>> competing rather
than cooperating products going after a very small market<BR>> (2000 users by
your numbers).<BR><BR>VisualDOE and PowerDOE are competitors. The programs have
some commonality,<BR>but they are also different in many ways. PowerDOE is
tightly integrated with<BR>DOE-2.2, while VisualDOE maintains its own data
structure and can more easily<BR>use other engines such as EnergyPlus. VisualDOE
is easier to use, but does<BR>not expose all the power of DOE-2.<BR><BR>I
believe that there should be competition in the private sector and that public
<BR>funding should focus on providing a common foundation for private sector
products,<BR>e.g. engines like DOE-2x, software components that can be plugged
into private sector<BR>applications, and rule sets for implementing the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 energy<BR>cost budget method, etc.<BR><BR>> If VisualDOE does
anything better than PowerDOE, maybe those advanced<BR>> features could be
integrated into PowerDOE? This addresses, in a arguably<BR>> basic way,
the public funds issue Jeff Hirsch raised.<BR><BR>I think diversity and
competition are good, as long as policies for<BR>public investments let the
market work fairly. The software that is ideal for an<BR>HVAC contractor is not
the same program that is ideal for an architect struggling<BR>with schematic
design concepts. The ideal program for a mechanical engineer is<BR>not the best
program for a lighting designer. So I guess I would prefer to see lots<BR>of
products, built from the same publicly funded foundation, but targeted
toward<BR>the needs of specific sectors of the market.<BR><BR>> The market
appears, in my humble and non-expert opinion, to be too small to<BR>> support
all the simulation software packages currently available. This<BR>>
might be diluting public funds. Again, that's just a wild guess on my
part,<BR>> but I'd rather have one awesome product vs. many good
ones.<BR><BR>My number of 2,000 is my estimate of the User's News mailing list.
However,<BR>I think the market is much larger than this if you include
mainstream architects,<BR>engineers, ESCOs and other potential users.<BR><BR>If
public funding were focused on engines, rule sets and software
components,<BR>then there would be no diluting of public funds. The products of
public<BR>investment would be offered to all private software developers in a
consistent<BR>manner. The public investment would be leveraged by a greater
private sector<BR>investment.<BR><BR>Charles Eley, FAIA,
PE<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV><PRE>
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE></BODY></HTML>