Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Close

Ecotect

- Autodesk Community
- >
- Building Performance Analysis
- >
- Ecotect
- >
- Re: Indirect Reflections and Daylight Factors

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

664 Views, 8 Replies

05-06-2009 02:22 AM

Hi all,

I seem to be having a problem calculating daylight factors using Radiance. I ran the daylight analysis for different scenarios varying the number of indirect reflections. I had anticipated the daylight factor should go up with an increased number of indirect reflections, but the results doesn't agree with this (see attachment)

Thank you,

Emily

I seem to be having a problem calculating daylight factors using Radiance. I ran the daylight analysis for different scenarios varying the number of indirect reflections. I had anticipated the daylight factor should go up with an increased number of indirect reflections, but the results doesn't agree with this (see attachment)

Thank you,

Emily

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-06-2009 08:15 AM in reply to:
jemily

Do you talk about the parament "-ab(ambient bounce)"?

There is a limit for the number of -ab, after exceeding this limit, the change is not great. In some experiments, someone give the conclusion that the number is 5.

Attached image is a experiment about the relationship between DF and the number of -ab.

There is a limit for the number of -ab, after exceeding this limit, the change is not great. In some experiments, someone give the conclusion that the number is 5.

Attached image is a experiment about the relationship between DF and the number of -ab.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-06-2009 08:39 AM in reply to:
jemily

I'm assuming "-ab" is the same as indirect reflection - just out of curiosity where does that phrase come from? I wrote "indirect reflection" because that was the name given on the lighting analysis wizard, but if -ab is the technical phrase, sorry for any confusion!

Anyway, I thought that as the number of indirect reflection/-ab increases, the DF also increases -*which is what your image is showing* - but the results I gained from Ecotect are suggesting the opposite. On the attached excel spreadsheet, the general pattern is that the average DF *decreases* as the number of indirect reflection/-ab increases (aside from Scenario 2, where the DF increased for 8 -ab - why is this by the way?).

I hope what I'm asking is clearer now.

Thank you

Anyway, I thought that as the number of indirect reflection/-ab increases, the DF also increases -

I hope what I'm asking is clearer now.

Thank you

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-06-2009 05:30 PM in reply to:
jemily

I can not open your excel(my office verson is 2003), you can upload your eco or rad files.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-07-2009 01:40 AM in reply to:
jemily

Hi, I've resaved the excel spreadsheet so it's compatible with the 2003 version, I hope it works. Thanks

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-07-2009 07:56 AM in reply to:
jemily

I have compare the daylight factor results, it is the same as you.

I think there is some thing wrong in ecotect`s daylight factor supposition.

To generate an overcast sky with a total horizontal illuminance value of 100 Lux, ECOTECT sets the -b parameter to 0.558659 (100/179, in fact it is also wrong, It should be: 9*100 / 7*179*PI) in gensky command. I think the key lies in this value is too small for actual conditions. If I change the -b value to 22(general conditions:10000lux) in gensky, the DF results will raise following the higher -ab number(that is right).

So I suggest you calculate the illumination, and then divide illumination by 20769.42 (this is illumination corresponding to the defauld -b 47.486034 ECOTECT set in gensky, I don't know why is this value) to get the DF.

Edited by: yunpeng on May 8, 2009 9:28 AM Edited by: yunpeng on May 8, 2009 9:35 AM

I think there is some thing wrong in ecotect`s daylight factor supposition.

To generate an overcast sky with a total horizontal illuminance value of 100 Lux, ECOTECT sets the -b parameter to 0.558659 (100/179, in fact it is also wrong, It should be: 9*100 / 7*179*PI) in gensky command. I think the key lies in this value is too small for actual conditions. If I change the -b value to 22(general conditions:10000lux) in gensky, the DF results will raise following the higher -ab number(that is right).

So I suggest you calculate the illumination, and then divide illumination by 20769.42 (this is illumination corresponding to the defauld -b 47.486034 ECOTECT set in gensky, I don't know why is this value) to get the DF.

Edited by: yunpeng on May 8, 2009 9:28 AM Edited by: yunpeng on May 8, 2009 9:35 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-08-2009 02:30 AM in reply to:
jemily

"*So I suggest you calculate the illumination, and then divide illumination by 20769.42 (this is illumination corresponding to the defauld -b 47.486034 ECOTECT set in gensky, I don't know why is this value) to get the DF."*

If I divide the illumination by 20769.42, the results would be far too small a number (i.e. in the 1x10^-3 region). Should I be dividing by 46.486034 instead?

Thank you

If I divide the illumination by 20769.42, the results would be far too small a number (i.e. in the 1x10^-3 region). Should I be dividing by 46.486034 instead?

Thank you

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

05-08-2009 08:27 AM in reply to:
jemily

1x10^-3 ? I do not encountered this phenomenon, I think you are using the DF calculation, you should get the illumination calculation, not the DF.

Attached image is the results I got.

Attached image is the results I got.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

11-22-2011 07:02 AM in reply to:
yunpeng

I would like to bring this subject up from it's grave because I'm having the same problem. More bounces gives lower results which is just plain wrong in my world. I can't really trust my results at the moment because they differ a lot depending on how many bounces I choose.

I tested with the solution provided, calculate as illuminance and it seems to work fine, the more bounces the higher the illuminance. But when I divide by 20769 I get quite low DF results, a little bit too low in my opinion. Btw, the formula is in my version of Ecotect is "V * 1,05", not "V * 100" as in yunpengs response, therefore I divided with 207,69 instead.

Does someone have a solution to this? Is the formula correct?

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements

Upgrading to a 2015 product? Make sure to check these out 1st!

- Privacy | Legal Notices & Trademarks | Report Noncompliance | Site map | © Copyright 2014 Autodesk Inc. All rights reserved

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Please see the Autodesk Creative Commons FAQ for more information.