Review noise and sun analysis results for two housing design proposals in multiple views.
Transcript
00:03
You can view multiple analyses for different designs side by side,
00:07
to examine the trade-offs of each and make data-based decisions regarding the best design alternative.
00:13
In this example of a residential site located next to a railway in Oslo, Norway, two important considerations are sun exposure and noise.
00:23
Once the relevant analyses have been run on more than one design proposal—
00:27
—in this case Sun hours and Noise—
00:30
—you can view the analyses side by side, to weigh the trade-offs of each alternative with respect to these factors.
00:36
Navigate to Compare.
00:39
Then, in the left panel, under the relevant proposals, select the analyses you want to view.
00:45
In this case, Noise analyses are selected for the first iteration of Alternative 2 and the Alternative 4 proposal with parking.
00:55
To make room for the second analysis, on the canvas, right-click each analysis and select Split horizontally.
01:03
Drag the Sun hours analysis for the same Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 proposals.
01:10
To replace one of the analyses, simply drag and drop another analysis to replace it.
01:16
Now, you can pan and zoom the four synchronized camera views
01:19
to examine the results of two different analyses for two design options.
01:24
Looking at Alternative 2 for Sun hours on April 21st,
01:28
the summary shows that 10,281 square meters or 36% of the site has more than 9 hours of sun on the ground,
01:38
while Alternative 4 has more than 16,500 square meters or 52% of sun over 9 hours.
01:46
That is a significant difference and may help with the decision to use one design option over the other.
01:52
Next, the summaries for the noise analyses are expanded, and you can scroll down to see the results for Ground, Facades, and Roofs.
02:02
When Facades is selected for both alternatives, you see that 72% of Alternative 2 is in green, which is a comfortable noise level,
02:11
whereas 69% is in green for Alternative 4.
02:15
To expand the view area, click the arrow on the edge of the summary panel to hide it.
02:20
Overall, Alternative 2 is better for noise than Alternative 4, but it does not offer as much sun exposure,
02:27
whereas Alternative 2 offers better sun exposure, but is not as good for noise.
02:32
As you have seen, viewing multiple analyses for different proposals side by side enables you to identify the trade-offs
02:39
and make data-based decisions on the best design alternative moving forward.
00:03
You can view multiple analyses for different designs side by side,
00:07
to examine the trade-offs of each and make data-based decisions regarding the best design alternative.
00:13
In this example of a residential site located next to a railway in Oslo, Norway, two important considerations are sun exposure and noise.
00:23
Once the relevant analyses have been run on more than one design proposal—
00:27
—in this case Sun hours and Noise—
00:30
—you can view the analyses side by side, to weigh the trade-offs of each alternative with respect to these factors.
00:36
Navigate to Compare.
00:39
Then, in the left panel, under the relevant proposals, select the analyses you want to view.
00:45
In this case, Noise analyses are selected for the first iteration of Alternative 2 and the Alternative 4 proposal with parking.
00:55
To make room for the second analysis, on the canvas, right-click each analysis and select Split horizontally.
01:03
Drag the Sun hours analysis for the same Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 proposals.
01:10
To replace one of the analyses, simply drag and drop another analysis to replace it.
01:16
Now, you can pan and zoom the four synchronized camera views
01:19
to examine the results of two different analyses for two design options.
01:24
Looking at Alternative 2 for Sun hours on April 21st,
01:28
the summary shows that 10,281 square meters or 36% of the site has more than 9 hours of sun on the ground,
01:38
while Alternative 4 has more than 16,500 square meters or 52% of sun over 9 hours.
01:46
That is a significant difference and may help with the decision to use one design option over the other.
01:52
Next, the summaries for the noise analyses are expanded, and you can scroll down to see the results for Ground, Facades, and Roofs.
02:02
When Facades is selected for both alternatives, you see that 72% of Alternative 2 is in green, which is a comfortable noise level,
02:11
whereas 69% is in green for Alternative 4.
02:15
To expand the view area, click the arrow on the edge of the summary panel to hide it.
02:20
Overall, Alternative 2 is better for noise than Alternative 4, but it does not offer as much sun exposure,
02:27
whereas Alternative 2 offers better sun exposure, but is not as good for noise.
02:32
As you have seen, viewing multiple analyses for different proposals side by side enables you to identify the trade-offs
02:39
and make data-based decisions on the best design alternative moving forward.
Multiple analyses for different designs can be viewed side by side, to examine the trade-offs of each and make data-based decisions regarding the best design alternative.
In this example of a residential site located next to a railway in Oslo, Norway, two important considerations are sun exposure and noise. The relevant analyses have been run.
Looking at Alternative 2 for Sun hours on April 21st, the summary shows that 10,281 square meters, or 36% of the site, has more than 9 hours of sun on the ground.
Alternative 4 has more than 16,500 square meters, or 52% of sun, over 9 hours—a significant difference that may help with the decision to use one design option over the other.
Overall, Alternative 2 is better for noise than Alternative 4, but it does not offer as much sun exposure, whereas Alternative 2 offers better sun exposure, but is not as good for noise.
