Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get started with the Help page
Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

Possible bug in TimeStep in Openstudio 2.9.0

I have just notice that parameter Timestep in the OpenStudio settings is not being used in the simulation. For example, if I choose 6, this step is ok in the .osm file:

OS:Timestep,
  {210f49e8-ab04-4b81-b6fd-0fac6eeadcbc}, !- Handle
  6;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

But in the in.idf file it will always remain 4:

Timestep,
  4;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

Am I missing something? I guess the only workaround is to write a energyplus measure to modify this value.

Possible bug in TimeStep in Openstudio 2.9.0

I have just notice that parameter Timestep in the OpenStudio settings is not being used in the simulation. For example, if I choose 6, this step is ok in the .osm file:

OS:Timestep,
  {210f49e8-ab04-4b81-b6fd-0fac6eeadcbc}, !- Handle
  6;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

But in the in.idf file it will always remain 4:

Timestep,
  4;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

Am I missing something?

I need to modify this value because I am using custom weather data with subhourly values. I guess the only workaround is to write a energyplus measure to modify this value.

Possible bug in TimeStep in Openstudio 2.9.0

I have just notice that parameter Timestep in the OpenStudio settings is not being used in the simulation. For example, if I choose 6, this step is ok in the .osm file:

OS:Timestep,
  {210f49e8-ab04-4b81-b6fd-0fac6eeadcbc}, !- Handle
  6;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

But in the in.idf file it will always remain 4:

Timestep,
  4;                                      !- Number of Timesteps per Hour

Am I missing something?

I need to modify this value because I am using custom weather data with subhourly values. I guess the only workaround is to write a energyplus measure to modify this value.