Hallo dear ladybuggers,
learning the excellent examples of the new LBT version, I find that for the creation of the windows/doors, the _AddSubfaces method, is always used.
Is this scheme recommended, (p.e. for a Daylight analysis), or can I easily have a hole in the wall, equivalent to the shape of the window, with a separated Brep for the equivalent window?
In this case, must my Brep window be a_Faces element or an _Aperture element?
sorry probably for the stupid question.
Best regard
Hi @Sonny.Weaver ,
When it comes to Honeybee Radiance models, you usually have more flexibility than you have with Honeybee energy models. If you don’t need your Honeybee model to be simulate-able in EnergyPlus/OpenStudio (or you won’t be running 3-Phase Radiance studies with your Honeybee Model once this recipe becomes available), then you don’t need to worry about creating Honeybee Rooms or following the parent/child hierarchy. So you can create your Apertures and Faces separately (punching holes in the Faces that have apertures) and plug the Faces and Apertures separately into the same “HB Model” component (without using the “HB Add Subface” or the “HB Room” components at all).
Of course, if it’s not going to affect the time it takes you to build the model, then you might as well construct the model with parent/child relationships. That is, you DON’T punch any holes in the Faces for apertures and you just assign the Apertures to the Face as children using the “HB Add Subface” component. Then, you can also join those Faces into Rooms using the “HB Room” component. Beyond allowing you to simulate the model in EnergyPlus or with 3-Phase, the benefits of constructing your model with parent/child hierarchy can be seen here on the honeybee-schema repo.
But, in both of these scenarios, all windows should always be modeled as Apertures and all opaque faces should be modeled as Faces or Shades. Transparent objects that are not windows (eg. trees with transmittance) should almost always be Shades.