[Radiance-general] Evaluation

[Alexa I. Ruppertsberg]

Hi,

triggered by Jan's and Richard's problem of evaluating glare, I was 
wondering how the architectual & lighting community (obviously I'm not a 
member of it) uses RADIANCE. I understand, you simulate your buildings 
and assess various lighting-related factors.

a) how do you know that the results you come up with 'reflect the true 
values' (I assume 'true' is +/- an error)? I agree the simulation 
results are not completely out of order in terms of luminance, otherwise 
people wouldn't use RADIANCE.

b) once a buliding has been built, has anyone gone back inside the 
office they simulated and obtained measurements to compare with their 
simulation results?

c) what magnitude of error is acceptable for your work?

d) I've come across two opposing views on the accuracy of lumenaire 
descriptor files provided by manufacturers. One states that these can be 
off quite a bit (I think I read that in the 'Rendering with Radiance' 
book) and other authors strut how careful and accurate their simulation 
is by using manufacturer-provided lumenaire descriptors.

Sorry, if these questions sound rather trivial, but answers are highly 
appreciated.

Cheers,
Alexa

Jan Wienold wrote:
> Hi Richard and rest of community,
> 
> we are actually working on a research project, dealing with user 
> assessments with special focus on glare from daylight in office spaces.
> We have already tested 100 subjects at two different locations under 
> very different conditions (facade systems, window sizes, viewing 
> directions...).
> 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Alexa I. Ruppertsberg
Department of Optometry
University of Bradford
Bradford
BD7 1DP
UK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~