<html>
Good discussions so far! My 2 cents worth concerns my own pre- and
post-processing routine, using an EXCEL spreadsheet to create DOE2.1E
input files and receive 8760 outputs for processing. Therefore I am
waiting for other codes to become as versatile and reliable as 2.1E
before I voluntarily scrap this approach and start over. Also, I
need functions for 8760 input of end-use data on lighting and
miscellaneous loads. Finally, the thought of switching to an
entirely new code (not so much DOE2.2 as EnergyPlus) that doesn't have
the debugging and verification history of 2.1E really concerns me right
now.<br>
<br>
Glenn haynes,<br>
RLW Analytics, Inc.<br>
<br>
At 07:56 AM 2/7/2003 -0700, Mark E. Case wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I
must admit we miss the function capabilities of 2.1e. Not that I used it
very often but I ve got a computer geek that did. We end up faking things
more often when we used to be able to plug our own patch into the code. I
seem to remember hearing that this ability was `almost in 2.2 but the
last bit of implementation is awaiting sufficient interest (i.e. $).
Perhaps Scott can update us. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I m also under the impression,
from good sources, that the bulk of the 2.2 code is so closely based on
2.1e that the historical verification is still valid. Perhaps not as much
with new 2.2 features. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Loop errors can be a pain,
especially since they aren t caught in BDL processing. We ve managed to
prevent most of them by careful review of inputs but they still
occasionally pop up. Other than that the latest 2.2 versions have rarely
crashed and even the latest eQuest versions crash much more infrequently
than earlier versions. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">As for features I m sure we
could all list a number that we d love to see. In a perfect
world&.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Let s keep up the discussion.
<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> postman@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:postman@gard.com" eudora="autourl">mailto:postman@gard.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Fred Porter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1 vs DOE 2.2<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">The loops and plant in DOE 2.2 are
great, the real OA HXs, and better economizer ctrls are great, and the
window module is nifty, and Equest is amazing freeware, but .....<br>
<br>
We still use DOE 2.1 in lots of commercial work. In my experience DOE 2.2
crashes much more often. Often this seems to be associated with excessive
flow demands on a loop, but the process of debugging is much more
frustrating than errors caught by the BDL processor. Perhaps some
checking is built into Equest or PowerDOE, and so is not done in BDL.
Recent versions are better, but not immune by any means. <br>
<br>
DOE 2.2 does not implement the custom "functions" which we use
to input better space daylight level correlations derived from Radiance,
etc, to the DOE2 daylighting routine. Occasionally we've used functions
for other things, but this usually did seem like an exercise better
suited to academia!<br>
<br>
Only version 41j of DOE2.2 had tower free cooling, in 41i this feature
was removed. Perhaps there is a work-around I have not thought of; many
of our larger modeled buildings use flat-plate HXs for modest winter CHW
loads. (The Canadians use these extensively instead of air-side
economizers, for a variety of good reasons.)<br>
<br>
We've never found a GUI or wizard that managed multiple ECM runs as well
as some spreadsheet or database methods we use. The available front-ends
for 2.1 and 2.2 do generate initial model inputs, particularly geometry,
nicely in most cases. As far as I know, both can be used for code
compliance, as long as the code or design does not require or use
waterside economizing.<br>
<br>
Anyone else care to comment?<br>
<br>
Chris Jones wrote:<br>
<br>
We use DOE2.1e in our shop. Primarily because of the significant
verification against measured data that has been done on DOE2.1e over the
years. The other reason is that ASHRAE 90.1 and in particular LEED
require simulation using DOE2.1e. <br>
<br>
Here in Canada, the Model National Energy Code, Performance Option
required simulation using EE4 (a free compliance tool
<a href="http://www.ee4.com">http://www.ee4.com</a> ) that used the
DOE2.1e engine from Hirsh and Associates. Similar to eQuest, you
can use EE4 to quickly generate an input file then edit it for you
particular situation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">We use eQuest
extensively, sometimes using the wizard mode to get started, sometimes
not. We began using DOE2.1d when it was first available on PC platforms
and kept with it through PowerDOE and the `never officially released
DOE2.2. We often use eQuest to create BDL code which we then edit with a
text editor. I must admit I m sometimes surprised to hear of
modelers (often in Academic situations) still working with 2.1e when `2.2
is a significant improvement and is absolutely free via eQuest. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I, like John, am holding off on
EnergyPlus until I can justify the tremendous expense of training my
people on a new product that is still not ready for prime time.
Eventually, I hope, but not yet. I m guessing five years before there is
a product that is enough better than eQuest to justify the investment.
(And that s assuming eQuest doesn t continue to improve). <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I imagine that there are
numerous eQuest users that are not aware of the BLDG-SIM forum. Too bad
it would be nice to see more interaction around the eQuest program.
Perhaps SCE/EDR could provide an information blurb about this forum on
their web site or to everyone who down loads eQuest.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Mark E. Case, P.E.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">etc Group, Inc.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Salt Lake City, Utah<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><br>
<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><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><div align="center">
<font size=1>etc Group, Inc. 3481 South 2300 East, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84109 (801) 278-1927, FAX (801)
278-1942<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=1>Normal.dot 2/6/2003 2:14 PM<br>
</font><br>
<div align="center">
<font size=1>etc Group, Inc. 3481 South 2300 East, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84109 (801) 278-1927, FAX (801)
278-1942<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=1>Normal.dot 2/6/2003 2:14 PM<br>
</font><br>
<div align="center">
<font size=1>etc Group, Inc. 3481 South 2300 East, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84109 (801) 278-1927, FAX (801)
278-1942<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=1>Normal.dot 2/6/2003 2:14 PM<br>
</font><br>
<div align="center">
<font size=1>etc Group, Inc. 3481 South 2300 East, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84109 (801) 278-1927, FAX (801)
278-1942<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=1>Normal.dot 2/6/2003 2:14
PM</font></blockquote></html>