That is the generic warning that pops up because it’s usually supposed to be triggered by holding down the escape key (that’s how you cancel the calculation) But in this case, an error is probably triggering it (I’m sure that it’s something different than the previous bug you cite). It’s going to be extremely difficult to know what went wrong without a grasshopper file that recreates the issue. Once you post the link to the GH file, I’ll have a look. It’s probably just an incorrect input that isn’t caught by the checks inside the components.
Carmelo,
It’s going to take a long time for your file to run on my system. As I recommended last time, it will help you a lot if you just planarize your zone geometry. If the simulation manages to finish in 15 minutes, I’ll have a go at fixing the issue but it looks like it takes this 3-zone energy model over an hour to run because the geometry is not planar. If this is the case, I’ll let it run overnight and try to get back to you whenever it finishes. But my #1 suggestion is just planaraize the geometry rather than waiting hours for a simulation like this to finish.
Carmelo,
I left the components running over the weekend and, while the energy simulation finished in 1.1 hours, the other components are not yet done. There’s really no substitute for just planarizing your geometry. If you build a planar version of your model and find that the issue still persists, I’ll check it. But a model with this level of curvature just ends up being too meshed be practical.
Following this conversation as well cos I am experiencing the same issue for both the PMV and PET analysis tool. The geometry is planar and energy+ takes 7.something seconds to run so I don’t think is a geometry issue.
@drishtichatrath ,
If you check the readme! output of the comfort component, it will give you more information about what went wrong. In your case, you have a bunch of duplicate surface names:
thanks for the feedback. I inquired the tool several times and i have several issue in all the thermal comfort tools. I need to dig it deeper to understand what is going wrong.
At the moment I am focused on E+ side. Once I will focus again on the thermal comfort I will provide more information.
I don´t know if your problem @alberto.gallotta, could be related to this, but I recently I found out that the microclimate analysis component doesn´t like subsurfaces in adiabatic walls. As a result, it throws the same error:
If yes, does anyone have any idea on what this error could be pointing to?
On a separate note, does anyone know how to extract the mean radiant temperature results using the HB Adaptive Comfort Map component of the new LBT? @chris , could you advise if we are looking into exposing the mean radiant temperature results in the upcoming releases of LBT?
I just added this capability to the latest development version of the LBT plugin. If you run the LB Versioner here’s a new component called “HB Read Environment Matrix” that can load MRT as well as shortwave MRT Delta vs. longwave MRT.