Hllo

first of all thank you to the both of you…

I read carefully both answer but I’m not sure i’m understanding your answers…

I made so many different surfaces because I wanted to analyse the solar availability on each orientation.

But to make thinks (hopefuly! ) clearer, I attach a simplified version of my analysis using the same one surface to run the three different cases. I assume that the direction of the surface is now the same, still results are different. The top case in rhino correspond to the top case in the GH canvas, the lower in Rhino to the lower in GH…

I expected a difference in each run… but the cases differ of 100% not 10% that would be reasonable…

Case 1 158 W/m2 for the “only test point” option

Case 2 314 W/m2 for the “test point + pts Vectors” case

Case 3 282 W/m2 for the ladybug option

The analysis is made the day 1 , hour 12h and the the solar radiation condition are:

Direct 125 W/m2

Diffuse 164 W/m2

Global Horiz 207 W/m2

The interesting thing is that the three cases made for the orizontal surface give the same results. ** **

moreover if the materials reflectance is changed to 1, the results are very similar but the values are higher than the sum of direct + diffuse as for case 2

**125+164 = 289 results give 314 **

(diffuse radiation is obviously calculated on horizontal surface in the weather file and the surface analysis is vertical so the percentage of diffuse radiation that the surface will receive will be even less).

Hope that I’ve been clearer and sorry if you already have answered my question, but I’m not understanding the results. (i’m not a GH pro-user but I’m quite familiar with analysis and these stuff)

Thank you again

filippo

Comparison_simplified.3dm (690 KB)

Comparison_simplified.gh (537 KB)