[Radiance-general] New Radiance Website

Tue Mar 6 14:17:14 PST 2012

Absolutely!  Let me know when it contains Radiance components and I will link to it.  Or better yet, register, I'll promote you, and you can add the link when it is time.

Andy

On Mar 6, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Guglielmetti, Robert wrote:

> I'd also like to point out that NREL is developing the Building Component
> Library (BCL), initially conceived as a repository for vetted energy model
> components, but there is no reason why Radiance data/models couldn't be
> added to the schema. The idea is there will be a place to go to search for
> energy model bits -- everything from HVAC, windows, materials, lights,
> weather files -- and these can be downloaded, or pulled directly into an
> OpenStudio model. I definitely envision us adding Radiance-ready data to
> these database members.
> 
> We've got it mocked up here: https://bcl.nrel.gov/
> 
> So, another place to link to.
> 
> 
> Rob Guglielmetti  IESNA, LEED AP
> Commercial Buildings Research Group
> National Renewable Energy Laboratory
> 1617 Cole Blvd MS:RSF202
> Golden, CO 80401
> T. 303.275.4319
> F. 303.630.2055
> E. robert.guglielmetti at nrel.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/6/12 10:22 AM, "Andy McNeil" <amcneil at lbl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> HI Lars,
>> 
>> I think your comments regarding FAQ's are spot on.  I don't want to
>> duplicate effort, so I'd like to let you continue to develop your FAQ and
>> will replace the stub on with a redirection to your site.  It would be
>> nice to integrate the two, at least using the same login/passwords.
>> 
>> I agree that models are generally less useful than objects, but I would
>> contend that in the research community there are desires to share and use
>> standard models.  I have some Radiance models for DOE prototype buildings
>> that others might like to use.  And HMG has 61 models of existing
>> buildings that many have already asked for them to share.
>> 
>> But regardless, we can let users decide which is worth sharing.  And
>> taking the lead from your FAQ, we could get rid of the formal categories
>> and instead using tags.  If you want to simulate a daylight redirecting
>> system you would probably want to see results for both a cal file and a
>> model of the system.
>> 
>> I'll end by saying -  please help!
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Lars O. Grobe wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Andy, hi list!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is a nice framework for an appealing site! I especially like the
>>> fact that the design of the "good old" site could be adopted.
>>> 
>>> I started setting up something related recently. Not based on Plone but
>>> Drupal, not a complete "Radiance Website" but a concept focussing on
>>> just having a working FAQ one day. You may get an idea here:
>>> 
>>> http://radiance.larsgrobe.de
>>> 
>>> The only part of interest on the site is the FAQ for now. I have spent
>>> some time on thinking how to organize a FAQ, and abandoned the idea of
>>> having single categories per question. I believe a tag-system being much
>>> more appropriate, e.g. a question/answer pair on mkillum might be
>>> related to "commands", "diffuse indirect calculation", "complex glazing"
>>> and "optimizations". One day one might decide to also tag the content on
>>> user levels, so a tag "advanced user" might be added. Browsing the
>>> mailing lists, there is such a vast amount of information that I tend to
>>> pay a lot of attention on the topic of marking it. Once a certain amount
>>> of content is available, tag clouds (which may occur in alphabetical
>>> order - I do not rely like the fancy cloud displays typically rendered
>>> with lots of formatting) may be of more help then a fixed hierarchy.
>>> 
>>> One feature that I spent some time on was to integrate tex notation into
>>> the content management. I added a test on the start page. You can embed
>>> any Latex code in the content, which will be rendered into inline
>>> images, but also be available as pdf downloads. The need to display
>>> formulas and algorithms seams to be of importance. I am going to add
>>> support for describing geometry in the content management, too -
>>> basically I want to keep content descriptive and avoid bitmap images as
>>> far as possible, so that content can be reused (e.g. for copying the
>>> Latex source into a formula editor when writing an article), reformatted
>>> and extended at any time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On sharing: I think that sharing models is an interesting part of a
>>> community website, though I am not sure that much model content will
>>> become available. Most Radiance models are case-studies - buildings,
>>> rooms, facades. Objects to be shared are more like furniture and other
>>> decorative stuff, not bound to a specific use case - which is already
>>> available on the internat. Similar is true for textures.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I see a need for sharing of cal-files. This would require an interface
>>> where I could check the parameters and get a preview of the results -
>>> downloading the cal-file is easy, using it makes things difficult.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The gallery is a must....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A Radiance material library would be great and is a topic on its own. I
>>> started a concept of holding material data in a database, with several
>>> interfaces to access it. I would prefer the data to be independent of
>>> the software using it, so e.g. I would want spectral resolutions
>>> supported beyond the three RGB channels natively supported by Radiance.
>>> 
>>> Extracting a Radiance material from this could be implemented in the
>>> interface - combining the measured data from the database with the
>>> assumptions to be made when using it in Radiance (e.g. I would need to
>>> know that the data from the spectrometer are to be used with a plastic
>>> modifier). So a material record could contain a table "models", where I
>>> could add proposed models for various software tools. So querying the
>>> model-table for "Radiance" for this material would return "plastic",
>>> while querying for "MyOtherRenderer" could return
>>> "lambertianReflection".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I decided not to publicly announce this project so far, as there is
>>> little content right now. Maybe there is some potential for combining
>>> efforts, so I add this to the discussion.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, Lars.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Radiance-general mailing list
>>> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
>>> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Radiance-general mailing list
>> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
>> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Radiance-general mailing list
> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general