[Bldg-sim] Discrepancy between Equest & Trace 6.2

[Eurek, John S NWO]

John,

It is like buying a car.  Do you want a truck, manual/automatic, something
fast.......  You are asking for information overload.  If you know exactly
what you want it may be easier for us (in this list) to help guide you to the
best option.

I also was once curious and found the link below.  The end of the paper has
charts comparing different features.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/pdfs/contrasting_the_c
apabilities_of_building_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pdf 

Another sight.
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/energyanalysis.php


I use Trace 700 (v6.2.4).  Why? Because the first, second and third company I
worked for used it.  It is good for running loads, but so-so for energy
modeling.  Also I have never used anything else.  I have looked at equest and
DOE, they both look like learning a completely new programming language.  

I wouldn't mind hearing other people's brief views of the programs they use.
Equest, DOE, HAP, ect.



John Eurek LEED AP
Mechanical Engineer, 
US Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District CENWO-ED-DA
1616 Capitol Avenue
Omaha, NE 68102
Phone: (402) 995-2134
email: john.s.eurek at usace.army.mil


-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Peterson, John
(EYP/HP CFS)
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:03 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Discrepancy between Equest & Trace 6.2

 

Has there been any information released on the differences between energy
simulation programs?  We have a bid requirement with a certain percentage
listed and we have been asked to address the differences between the bid
model and the newly proposed model.  

 

Thanks in advance -

John

 

John Peterson, PE, LEED AP

HP Critical Facilities Services delivered by EYP

6600 Rockledge Drive, 4th Floor

Bethesda, MD  20817

cell: 202-731-5835