[BLDG-SIM] Hornet's Nest -- Policy for Public Investment in Energy Software

Nate Blair at MTM blair at sel.me.wisc.edu
Wed Feb 2 07:58:59 PST 2000


Mark,
cc:  Bldg-Sim list

I want to agree whole-heartedly with you about the openness of simulation
"engines" promoting improvement and external (non-government funded)
enhancements such as front-ends. I have worked with TRNSYS, another
building simulation tool, for several years and the main reason TRNSYS has
been around since 1975 and is a strong building and system simulation tool
today is because it has a flexible open architecture that allows any user
to add in their own models or modify the existing models.  The original
design of TRNSYS has provided the structure that allows this. The TRNSYS
developers are not even often aware of the capabilities that certain users
have added to the package however the core components of the TRNSYS package
have been the product of extensive graduate-level research at the Univ. of
Wisconsin and other locations lending validation and credibility.

TRNSYS now has several excellent front-ends that allow users to connect
simulation components together.  These front-end programs have not received
any public DOE funding and actually originate in Europe. Although a level
of coordination is necessary between front-end developers and "engine"
developers, the enforced separation between "engine" and "front-end" make
it relatively easy to "call TRNSYS" from any front-end and development of
both front-end and "engine" can proceed individually. In addition, several
building related interfaces that allow CAD tools to interact with TRNSYS
are now being developed at the request of users.  This situation has worked
very well for the TRNSYS group of developers.

I am not against public funding of interface development but just wanted to
state that, in the case of TRNSYS, the characteristics of the program that
made developing a front-end easier and faster (hence cheaper) has been the
inherently modular and open structure of the "engine" and the resistence of
the TRNSYS group to specifically integrate the "engine" with a single
"front-end".  

Again, I just want to add support to the previous email by stating another
example. In the case  of TRNSYS, in addition to DOE2, the openness of the
architecture combined with the modular structure and division between the
"engine" and "front-end" have allowed the users to do "what they want" and
promoted synergy with other software developers.

Sincerely,
Nathan Blair


Graduate Student in Technical Management
Univ. of Wisconsin School of Business
630 East Johnson St.  Apt. 3
Madison WI  53703
blair at sel.me.wisc.edu
http://sel.me.wisc.edu/blair

At 08:55 AM 2/1/00 -0700, Mark Case wrote: 
>>>>
In as much as it is possible to separate `engines' from `interfaces', there
is a critical difference, one that may play a role in public vs. private
funding (and developement). One of the major reasons DOE2.x enjoys the
success it does is because it is open and has been extensively `tested' or
`proven', within the given context of good vs bad modeling practices. This
acceptance of the `engine' allows anybody to put an interface on it and not
impact this basic strength. Even if the interface is completely closed, as
long as people can see the resulting BDL code, there is a varying but
generally large degree of faith in the model.
Indeed, I would be much more hesitant to used either PowerDOE, Visual DOE,
eQuest, or VisualDOE PlantOnly, were it not for the fact that I can see the
resulting BDL input. This `tranparency' is also part of the reason we
switched from Trace 600 to DOE2.1 some ten years ago. 
  
 -----Original Message-----
From: Postman at gard.com [mailto:Postman at gard.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Hirsch
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:42 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Hornet's Nest -- Policy for Public Investment in Energy
Software
  
 Also we do engines, interfaces, and specialized applications - we do not
see a policy that allows public investment in engines but not interfaces
logical.  Again, the policy for public funding should be to do what is
needed most, but in a way that enhances the private sector not competes
with it; use of public funding for enabling technology is almost always
welcome, for products is ONLY welcome if it is spend within the private
sector through competitive awards.
 ---
Jeff Hirsch
James J. Hirsch & Associates
Building Performance Analysis Software & Consulting
12185 Presilla Road
Camarillo, CA 93012-9243 USA
phone: (805) 553-9000
fax: (805) 532-2401
email: <mailto:Jeff.Hirsch at DOE2.com>Jeff.Hirsch at DOE2.com
web: <http://DOE2.com>http://DOE2.com
  

==================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM



You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

<<<<


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list