[Radiance-general] Radiance-general Digest, Vol 130, Issue 5

Tue Jan 6 02:03:18 PST 2015

Good morning G,

Happy New Year to you also :)

Thank you very much for your response to my question. That was a great help!

Kind regards,
Rosemary
On 31 Dec 2014 20:00, <radiance-general-request at radiance-online.org> wrote:

> Send Radiance-general mailing list submissions to
>         radiance-general at radiance-online.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         radiance-general-request at radiance-online.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         radiance-general-owner at radiance-online.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Radiance-general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Vertical Sky Component calculation (Rosemary McLafferty)
>    2. Absent du bureau (boutillier at estia.ch)
>    3. Re: Vertical Sky Component calculation (G)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:32:33 +0000
> From: Rosemary McLafferty <rosemarymclafferty at gmail.com>
> To: radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> Subject: [Radiance-general] Vertical Sky Component calculation
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEShHTpa_bqDGma4BHFhsttGBBurU0MbxUkdqWb-fEgq4NX5jQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi there,
> I would like some clarification on the VSC calculator within Radiance
> please. Site layout for planning guidance from BRE in UK states that 39.6%
> is the highest value possible when using the Waldram methodology however I
> have a model which is achieving 40/42% do I need to set anything additional
> within the software?  The result is going to form part of a planning
> application therefore I need to be confident that it is correct. Any advice
> would be welcome.
> Thanks Rosemary
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.radiance-online.org/pipermail/radiance-general/attachments/20141231/1ee2be53/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: 31 Dec 2014 11:35:34 +0100
> From: boutillier at estia.ch
> To: radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> Subject: [Radiance-general] Absent du bureau
> Message-ID: <20141231103534.29638.qmail at prospero.kreativmedia.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Bonjour,
>
>
>
> Je suis actuellement en vacances. Je serai de retour le 5 janvier 2015.
>
>
>
> En cas d'urgence, vous pouvez toujours appeler le num?ro g?n?ral d'Estia : +41
> (0) 21/693.83.03.
>
>
>
> Bonne f?tes de fin d'ann?e.
>
>
>
> Cordialement
>
>
>
> Julien Boutillier
>
> Estia SA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:28:04 +0100
> From: G <antonutto at yahoo.it>
> To: Radiance general discussion <radiance-general at radiance-online.org>
> Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Vertical Sky Component calculation
> Message-ID: <2FE6862B-FCBB-41A0-B1A4-536A63C963E2 at yahoo.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Rosemary,
> Best to increase -ad to a very high value until results converge.
> Try 10,000 to start with.
> Beside Radiance, I think that the method suggested in the BRE 209 (which
> is a deterministic ray tracing) is better from a planning perspective as
> you will get the same results all the time and there is less room for
> litigations.
> If the BRE ray tracing method is used, then  the highest value is 40 as
> there are 80 rays of 0.5% which are traced.
> The only issue is that the rays (the dots) are placed according to the sky
> luminance but also incorporate a random factor to avoid the ?fence effect?
> It is possible to determine the elevation angle but for the azimuth the
> only route is to use the diagrams of BRE 209.
> Anyway, best to state assumptions clearly, explain the methodology and
> discuss the sensitivity of the results.
> For example if you calculate 40 instead of 39, there is no practical
> difference.
> If you calculate 13.5 instead of 18, then is another story?
> All the best and Happy New Year to all Radiance aficionados :-)
> G.
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2014, at 11:32, Rosemary McLafferty <
> rosemarymclafferty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> > I would like some clarification on the VSC calculator within Radiance
> please. Site layout for planning guidance from BRE in UK states that 39.6%
> is the highest value possible when using the Waldram methodology however I
> have a model which is achieving 40/42% do I need to set anything additional
> within the software?  The result is going to form part of a planning
> application therefore I need to be confident that it is correct. Any advice
> would be welcome.
> > Thanks Rosemary
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Radiance-general mailing list
> > Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> > http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.radiance-online.org/pipermail/radiance-general/attachments/20141231/febc3c56/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Radiance-general mailing list
> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>
>
> End of Radiance-general Digest, Vol 130, Issue 5
> ************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.radiance-online.org/pipermail/radiance-general/attachments/20150106/db45d135/attachment.html>