|
In as
much as it is possible to separate `engines' from `interfaces', there is a
critical difference, one that may play a role in public vs. private funding (and
developement). One of the major reasons DOE2.x enjoys the success it does is
because it is open and has been extensively `tested' or `proven', within the
given context of good vs bad modeling practices. This acceptance of the `engine'
allows anybody to put an interface on it and not impact this basic strength.
Even if the interface is completely closed, as long as people can see the
resulting BDL code, there is a varying but generally large degree of faith in
the model.
Indeed, I would be much more hesitant to used either PowerDOE,
Visual DOE, eQuest, or VisualDOE PlantOnly, were it not for the fact that I can
see the resulting BDL input. This `tranparency' is also part of the reason we
switched from Trace 600 to DOE2.1 some ten years ago.
=====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM@xxxxxxxx mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@xxxxxxxx |