This is my personal opinion, but it is based on 6 years of using OpenStudio as the GUI in my EnergyPlus lecture. The OpenStudio Sketchup plugin is not getting more stable but on the contrary new bugs emerge in each update that make us waste a lot of time and lose the focus of the lectures, which should be on the actual energy simulation. And most importantly, with a few surprising and illogical problems that happens from time to time even in the basic workflow, the students lose their trust in the tool and energy simulation all together.
I give you one recent example from using the latest version. We had two doors in a common wall in a building and we had used this example for years and had managed more or less to bypass the bugs to model it. But this year, when intersecting and matching the surfaces we realized that one of the overlapping doors becomes a wall. And for your information in OpenStudio it is not possible to convert a surface to a subsurface (or other way around), and if you remove such a piece of wall the whole surface is very likely to be deleted which makes the whole model useless. So, the tool again managed to surprise us with new illogical problems. And it is funny that after wasting a long time and losing the pace of the lecture, one student realized that when he pressed Ctrl-z just after the surface matching, the wall sub-surface became the door we wanted, without undoing other changes done by the command. This was also ironic, because based on experiences of the last years I had a don’t-do list for use of OpenStudio plugin which included “not pressing Ctrl-z when using OpenStudio functionalities”!
In general, the reason why I am giving up using OpenStudio is that we cannot avoid such problems even by asking the students to make like 10 step by step OpenStudio and SketchUp files (here), so that after each crashing bug they can go back one or more steps. Later in our program when they want to model more complex buildings in other courses or for their master thesis, they go through a lot of troubles to make the model geometry, which gives them the wrong impression that making the geometry is the main part of developing an energy model. I understand that one should have limited expectations from a freely available tool, but with all the issues that we have in the community to make real use of BPS tools in design and operation of buildings, wasting this much energy and time on the tools’ bugs (for just making the geometry of energy models) is a pity.
On the OpenStudio application I cannot be very accurate as we decided to use the good stable IDF Editor after the geometry creation (a workflow which by the way still suffers from using OpenStudio plugin, for example by not having easily understandable and editable compact schedules or not having generic names for constructions based on the type of surfaces). What I sensed about the application was that it still could not do everything you needed for a simple model, and again you were trapped in interface complexities and deficiencies. For example having a drag and drop functionality for adding constructions may look “sexy”, but I prefer a more stable and comprehensive procedure, which at least gives me the possibilities I have in IDF Editor.