Since Vasari is aimed at architects and other building professionals I wonder how accurate the solar calculation is. I guess it is based on the work of Andrew Marsh and because if this, similar to Ecotect. To my knowledge these methods are not verified or documented. I read a study by Diego Ibarra and Christoph Reinhart from last year where they studied the “tile method” in Ecotect and found a relative error for annual irradiation on a south façade at 35% (!) compared to Daysim.
To be able to use Vasari as a trustworthy tool I would therefore like you to release a full documentation of the calculation method and it’s limitations and also compare the calculation engine with other tools like Daysim and GenCumulativeSky.
The Autodesk Green Building Studio web service (used by Vasari) simulation results were evaluated under
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2004, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building
Energy Analysis Computer Programs, and certified by the U.S. Department of Energy. We also worked with NREL to validate the solar and PV calculations that are in Green Building Studio. We are still working on validating the Solar Radiation calculations.
Thanks a lot. How about the wind tunnel model? Is this validated in any way, for example if you compare it to Autodesk Simulation CFD or openFOAM.
The Ecotect Wind Tunnel modules uses a new solver we are developing that is code-named Falcon. You can read more about this technology from this page http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/falcon, and here a a quick overview of it's features:
This turbulence model is appropriate for many AEC-type external flow studies.
Also note there is a validation study posted on the labs page: