Hello DIVA Developers.

I run a lot simulations and sometimes it becomes difficult to keep track of what the different options I applied to my test models.


I would have a base model as my first run and it would have an output (.dat or pic) name such as:


then maybe I turned on a layer that had vertical louvers and re-ran my simulation and obtained a new output name: basemodel_1.clsky.092115.dat

then I apply another option and my next output name would be:


After a while all these different simulation output file would begin to add up. Usually I have no problem keeping track of what each one of my options are. But lets say I leave for couple weeks and then comeback. I might not remember what each option meant (unless I wrote them down). 

I know I can do a "save as" and give my file a custom name for each option, but that creates a lot of unnecessary extra files that becomes too much for file management.

So my request would be to add an option in the simulation dialog box that allows you to add comments. These comments could then be exported to a text file that would keep track of what each run meant. Then every time you run another simulation the file adds to that text file with the name of the new simulation and description ("user comment") of the simulation.



1. basemodel.clsky.092115.dat "Base model"

2. basemodel_1.clsky.092115.dat "Vertical Louvers"

3. basemodel_2.clsky.092115.dat " Light shelf"

I know I can do this manually but having it within diva already setup would really help out.

Best regards,

Fabian Posadas

Views: 200

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

just as a random side note, be aware (if you aren't already!) that when you open the pic files in e.g. Notepad++ you can see what Radiance parameters were used to create them- -ab -aa res and all the goodness. While I in principle agree that having such a doc feature could be nice, I would imagine it to be not really flexible enough for all user requirements in the end.. especially when you run other simulations in other packages that refer to the same design state. I definitely feel your pain, though.. you could be interested in this paper: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/gsdsquare/Publications/Picasa_B...



This is an excellent point Fabian. We have been thinking about file naming and archiving for a while and we hope to implement something in a coming version. I wanted to direct you to this paper  http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2011/P_1438.pdf but I see that Max has already done so. Great Max, I somehow was under the impression that nobody has ready this paper:).



^_^ I'm an expert in remembering *and* writing papers that remain chronically underread!

Thanks for sharing. 

This visualization tool mentioned in the paper  looks very promising.  I totally agree that their should be some kind of uniform naming convention, but this seems like a difficult task to implement. The easiest way to have a large group of people follow a uniform naming standard would probably come from implementing some type of naming wizard. Where people list their project info such as: name, type, location, and what ever options are going to be run. Then when the simulation runs have an automatic output file with the proper naming convention. Kind of like the eQuest development wizard, but used here only for project info. The downside is this would only apply to one software application. 

Best regards,


Well, I think in any case it would be a good idea to keep separate files for all changes, so that e.g. the "lightshelf" version of a design would by default save everything to other directories than the, say, "organic shading device" design state. that way, you can also reuse all the daylight coefficients and go back if you realize that you messed up the settings in an older file. I see those "all changes in one file" disasters happening over and over again in class.. :D



Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by jeff niemasz.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service