Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
Current working working solution:
My colleague tried many combinations and had this work format work:
"Foundation F #{f_factor.round(2).to_s} Perim #{perimeter.round(2).to_s} Area #{area.round(2).to_s}".gsub('.','')
The gsub removes the '.' to get you Foundation F 126 Perim 00 Area 52.
What makes this weird, is that we still received the same error if we replaced the dot with the letter 'p'. We're unsure if it's somehow related to this
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
Current working working solution:
My colleague tried many combinations and had this work format work:
"Foundation F #{f_factor.round(2).to_s} Perim #{perimeter.round(2).to_s} Area #{area.round(2).to_s}".gsub('.','')
The gsub removes the '.' to get you Foundation F 126 Perim 00 Area 52.
What makes this weird, is that we still received the same error if we replaced the dot with the letter 'p'. We're unsure if it's somehow related to this
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
Current working working solution:
My colleague tried many combinations and had this work format work:
"Foundation F #{f_factor.round(2).to_s} Perim #{perimeter.round(2).to_s} Area #{area.round(2).to_s}".gsub('.','')
The gsub removes the '.' to get you Foundation F 126 Perim 00 Area 52.
What makes this weird, is that we still received the same error if we replaced the dot with the letter 'p'. We're unsure if it's somehow related to this
UPDATE: This seems to be a known E+ bug. More information can be found here
