[BLDG-SIM] hornets nest? Stay the course !!

[Robert Sonderegger]

The discussion over the last few days has indeed been stimulating.  Mark
Case as hornet's ringmaster should be commended.

May I inject some reality checks into this discussion?  We have so far heard
from computer scientists, designers, and esco's, as user groups.  Clearly
there is a need for simulation out there, and serious commercial outfits
like Autodesk have made it clear in the past that they thought so, too.
Forrester Research says that in 1998 $175 Billion was spent on energy
purchases for the commercial sector alone, in the U.S.  Why don't "we" have
more of an impact on reducing, or at least influencing, that number?  Just
try to apply modern, transaction-based e-commerce thinking...

As we have seen just in our recent exchanges, the needs are very diverse.
The need to "match simulation to utility bills" is a very familiar one, as
is the need for designers to model innovative HVAC-ZONE linkages and for
researchers to try things out before they are built in the lab.

It may be simply naïve to think that one computer program would fit all
those needs, be it DOE-2 or EnergyPlus.  In my experience, one of the
reasons commercial software distributors have generally shied away from
building simulation is because of the exorbitant complexity/focus ratio of
its developer community.  There is no way to make money by selling the space
shuttle sitting in a hangar, of which many codes may remind them.  At best a
commercial outfit would want to inquire whether the space shuttle is for
rent, and whether it makes sense for them to use it for their particular,
commercial mission.  Unfortunately, they may instead be "sold" on the
benefits of bigger and better space shuttles to come, and find no volunteers
to pilot the one they're looking at.  No wonder they walk away, like
AutoDesk.

Back to building simulation - I am concerned, and have been for a long time,
at the single-minded focus on calculation detail and uncompromising
flexibility, at the expense of focused attempts to solve one problem at a
time.  In my personal opinion,  the Pacific Energy Center's Cool Tools
project is an example of a a welcome change from this path.  But that's a
story for another day.

Back to the DOE-2 vs. EnergyPlus issue, let's try to look at this from a big
software outfit's point of view, one that is used to meet client needs with
well-targeted solutions, whether off-the-shelf or custom-made.  Such an
outfit would consider DOE-2 "legacy code" and recognize its value and needs.
Value, in that it is a hardy survivor, tested by many, and with a relatively
high degree of credibility.  The needs I don't need to enumerate here,
others have done it more cogently.  If anything, it is surprising how well
code designed in the 70's has held up over time.

Is EnergyPlus the answer?  I, for one, have hoped so for a long time.  I
have great respect for the people behind it and don't envy their task.  I am
all too familiar with the impossible situation of devlopers at the center of
wildly diverging expectations by a large and diverse customer community.
And, government funded or not, this effort must have customers.  It is easy
to be critical in this situation, and I would have no trouble adding my pet
peeves to those of many others.  But given that this effort is still under
way, and "the jury is out" as it were, it may be better to let this effort
run its course, at least through a Beta Release worthy of that designation,
before rushing to judgment.

So what should we do while we wait.  What would we do if EnergyPlus didn't
even exist?  The traditional answer (not that it has been heeded often) is
to assemble a representative group of users and beat the needs out of them.
I no longer think this process to be productive, because the needs are so
diverse.  Instead, I believe that there should be a concerted effort to woo
the commercial interests who have *experience* in the industry - building
procurement, software toolmakers, control manufacturers.  Experience means
knowing what sells and what doesn't.  Their enthusiasm or lack thereof are
our best proxies today for the broader markets' needs.

Does "the government" have a place in this?  I wholeheartedly believe so.
Only a public organization may have the credibility required to develop
unbiased, accurate tools.  In that sense, I have always liked Energy Plus's
approach to develop code with a software interface, not a user interface.
This being said, it is most unfortunate that those expected to write such
user interfaces for commercial gain are being brought in at the tail end of
the effort, rather than the beginning.  Above all, this effort needs
"buy-in" by as many constituencies as possible, especially those expected to
make it fly in the commercial market place.  So far, I am still waiting to
see this happen.

Robert Sonderegger

P.S. The views and opinions in this post are mine alone, and should not in
any way be construed as being in line with, or opposed to, the thinking
within ASHRAE TC 4.7 that I am honored to chair at the moment.

_________________________________________________________________________
Robert C. Sonderegger                          SRC Systems Inc.
Executive Vice President, R&D               2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 410
SRC Systems Inc.                                   Berkeley, CA  94705-1152
USA
Voice (510) 848-8400 Ext. 101               Website:
http://www.src-systems.com <http://www.src-systems.com> 
Fax (510) 848-0788                                Products: Metrix,
MarketManager
								Services:
MetrixCentral, FastTrack
Email: RCS at src-systems.com <mailto:RCS at src-systems.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