We know that Archsim has been superseded into ClimateStduio (Also Diva). So now, what is the difference between Honeybee and ClimateStudio?
I’ve being using climate studio for a couple.of months now and I must say.that it’s very easy to use and quite fast to output results as well. IMHO CS is a more specific software that does not require scripting (the lasted version has now GH components) you get fast results(the progressive rendering and calculations are super fast and very accurate), tables and graphics right out of the box, LEED credits calculations and automated reports. In a commercial workflow this speed is quite welcome and as mentioned you can do all that outside GH. On the other hand LBT is a whole ecosystem, very flexible and it can do simulations that CS is lacking, but you need to know GH quite well.
My studio uses them both. To me, they complement each other. CS for quick studies and fast results, LBT for more in-depth and iterations (we haven’t tested CS in GH yet, but I’m sure it will be easy to iterate between options as well)
An other thing to consider is CS is a commercial plug-in while.LBT is powered by the community (we love that). There’s little to none community in CS,but the guys at Solemma are quite helpful.
Material definition is similar to LBT ( you must provide radiance files) and the default library is huge but a bit desorganized to my taste. So defining materials for daylight is super easy and fast as well.
Give it a try and let me know what do you think of it.
Hope this helps
As a long time user of Ladybug, I will be experimenting with Climate studio soon, I will come back with more insight soon.