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
路路路
On 31 Dec 2014 20:00, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send Radiance-general mailing list submissions to
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽[email protected]To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽[email protected]You can reach the person managing the list at
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽[email protected]When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Radiance-general digest..."Today's Topics:
聽聽聽1. Vertical Sky Component calculation (Rosemary McLafferty)
聽聽聽2. Absent du bureau ([email protected])
聽聽聽3. Re: Vertical Sky Component calculation (G)----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:32:33 +0000
From: Rosemary McLafferty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Radiance-general] Vertical Sky Component calculation
Message-ID:
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽<
CA[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Radiance-general] Absent du bureau
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
To: Radiance general discussion <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Vertical Sky Component calculation
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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 < > [email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> 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
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-generalEnd of Radiance-general Digest, Vol 130, Issue 5
************************************************