The point that I'm not understanding is how the outward pointing vector angle to normal can be so different between the two surfaces. Both outward vectors are facing the same direction (outwards).
As far as I understand, I should be able to ignore this "severe" error with some confidence. Yes the window does maybe not sit geometrically in the other surface, but e+ hardly cares, right? It knows which zones and surfaces it belongs to and the shadowing inaccuracies and light transmission can only be minimally effected right? Unless part of the window is under the roof surface. I'll check the minimum z values of the window against the max z values of the roof verticies.
------------------------------------
Primary EnergyPlus support is found at:
http://energyplus.helpserve.com or send a message to energyplus-support@xxxxxxxx
The primary EnergyPlus web site is found at:
http://www.energyplus.gov
The group web site is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/
Attachments are currently allowed but be mindful that not everyone has a high speed connection. Limit attachments to small files.
EnergyPlus Documentation is searchable. Open EPlusMainMenu.pdf under the Documentation link and press the "search" button.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
EnergyPlus_Support-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
EnergyPlus_Support-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
EnergyPlus_Support-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/