1) The explanantion what the program is outputing is non-existant. It would be nice to have an explanation of what energy cost are grouped into each category so the designer can make sense out of the results.
1a) The results should show you what the baseline systems are, so deviations from the baseline are apparent.
2) Why does the lighting source and number of fixtures matter in the lighting calculations for each space? It would be better if the only thing required for input was the total amount of lighting wattage for that particular space. All of the other input just adds data input time.
3) A lot of the HVAC system types are the same. A better description of each system is necessary.
4) All of building envelope input should be in square footage and not width by height.
5) The building materials and constructs format is terrible. I have never used a predefined wall or roof. I not sure where these come from but the predefined walls do not even come close to modeling current construction practices in South Florida.
6) There should be a 100% Oustide air system type.
7) In general the program is trying to do more than is necessary to show code compliance. I am for straight prescirptive measure to show energy code compliance. This would take a lot of lying out of the game and code officals will be able to catch people tying to skirt by the energy code. The current code officals have no idea what this sheet is printing and they are not going to see if you entered the data right.
I doubt any building has been accurately modeled with this software.

1. More constructs for common wall and roof types would be useful. Not sure why so many constructs for stone are in here. I know we can make our own constructs, but overall statewide more accurate modeling would occur with common constructs in the master library. Many folks without college engineering are using this program.

2. Ditto for master library materials. More common insulation types would be helpful.

3. An on-the-spot help button would be helpful, like on FLARES

4. The questions asking for fan watts per CFM cause undue calculations. How about asking for supply air, outdoor air, and fan horsepower? Lets have the program do these calculations so users can concentrate on inputs.

5. The efficiency entry for air conditioning is bulky. For instance, if I have given the information that the system is an air cooled split system under 5 tons, why do I still have to choose between SEER and EER?

6. Many spaces are not rectangular. It would be nice to have the option to enter total square feet as an option to length and width. Same with roofs and floors and walls.

7. The door input screen defaults to non-swinging. Most doors are swinging type and that should be the default.

8. Tilt angle for roofs would be easier to input if asked for as a pull down menu for 12:x pitches.

9. Perhaps you are bound by code, but lighting catagories for areas that many buildings have would be great – break rooms, clubrooms, cyber rooms, inactive stairs, apartments

In general, many little annoyances make this program hard to use. User interface overhaul is required to make this an effective tool.

http://www.seattle-architects.com/

There are many others…the AIA site from Seattle has more info. if you need it. thanks.

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting….