Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
I guess you would have to make a difference between "tools that allow you to quickly create models" (i.e. OpenStudio for EnergyPlus/Radiance and SU2RAD or Groundhog for pure Radiance ) and "tools that advice on what the design should be" (I am not aware of any of those that is currently in development or use... I heard of a few, though, some years ago)... I guess you will find more of the first kind than of the latter, and I think this applies to all design-related fields. For example, if you want to design a bridge, you make a proposal of how the steel might be arranged and then perform a structural analysis to see if your proposal was good (I understand that is how it works today).
I had this discution a few times in my last job. They always told me that the last advisor they had relied only on a highly educated common sense to make proposals and design alternatives. I believe that most of the people actually do that. However, building simulation tools allow checking if a design proposal is good or bad (just as the structural engineer designing a bridge) and also adding numbers to the analysis (i.e. everybody know that a lower WWR lowers the Solar Heat Gains and increases the insulation of the building... but, how much? what would be an appropriate WWR in this particular case?).
Long story short, I do not believe that any tool, nowadays, can "advice" very well on building design. However, there are tools, like the CLIMATE CONSULTANT that help getting an overview of the weather from a Weather File. This information is a very valuable input for your design process.
At least this would be my approach... first, study the weather; second, study the building requirements (internal loads, etc.); third, study the site available (size and shape, surroundings); fourth, use a tool that allows me quickly creating and evaluating design alternatives (i.e. OpenStudio and Groundhog).
Long post... sorry. Regards!
