Hi! I’m doing the Daylight Autonomy Analysis but the results are very weird, can you help me to find the error in my script? I’’l put my script down there. Thank you in advance and have a nice day!!!
Script sDA Finale.gh (82.5 KB)
Hi Stefano,
I can have a look, but there is not geometry in the file, could you please internalise the geometry or attach the Rhino file as well.
Thank you so much, I’ll attach the rhino file here.
Script sDA Finale.gh (75.4 KB)
2026 01 20_Analisi daylights.3dm (3.0 MB)
Stefano two things I believe:
The script is calculating colours per mesh face but displaying on the whole mesh. The mesh needs to be divided into faces.
Also the cumulative sky is set to the hours 8-25. Assume this should be 8-17.
See attached file with those two updates.
Script sDA Finale Updated.gh (85.2 KB)
Thank you so much! I’ve tried before with creating the panels but wasn’t working. Anyways, i cannot understand why the results are still so high, either if i modify the treshold making it higher. Like at 750 lux the results are way higher than ladybug with the same model. (65% vs 90%). Thank you again!!!
yeah…it happens same to me, i think that there is a problem with recognising the context. @oborgstrom how can we do? Thank u!!
@Stefano_Manias what radiance parameters are you using in honeybee? In the script you sent me you were using the Ultra analysis setting for Cyclops, this would be equivalent to the following radiance parameters:
-aa 0 -ab 12 -ad 360000 -lw 2.7E-08
It is crucial that the settings are the same in both tools if you are trying to compare. I described this further here.
@oborgstrom ok, i,ve setted with similar radiance values, but still the result, for example at 750 lux as treshold, it gives in a room 65% in ladybug and 94% in cyclops. I think that thre are some problems with the script maybe. Thank you so much!
@Stefano_Manias would you be able to attach the script including the simulation from both software’s?
2026 01 20_Analisi daylights - Copia.3dm (8.2 MB)
04 _ ILLUMINAZIONE INTERNA.gh (119.4 KB)
@oborgstrom Thank you!!!
@Stefano_Manias A few things:
- Different materials are applied in the two analyses.
- No materials are applied to the context/shades, meaning default material will be used. Default materials are not necessarily the same in Cyclops and Honeybee.
- The schedules for the DA are different. In Honeybee it is set to the default 8 to 17 on weekdays and in Cyclops it is set to 8 to 18 for all days of the year.
- There is intersecting coplanar geometry in the Honeybee model. Meaning there is shade geometry that intersects with the room geometry for both the floor and the ceiling. Not entirely sure how this will affect analysis
- The analysis grids are different.
- The walls are slightly different as the Cyclops analysis use the walls in the model while Honeybee use the walls defined when creating the HB room.
- For the weather and sky series the Luminous Efficacy Model and Luminance Distribution Model should be set to the AllWeather ones as they are the ones used in Radiance. This requirement is not very clear. Will update the next version to use these by default.
All of the above affect the difference in results. I believe the difference in materials is the most important.
See attached updated files with most of the above updates and more aligned results. average DA difference in the room of about 0.8%:
04 _ ILLUMINAZIONE INTERNA Fixed.gh (134.3 KB)
2026 01 20_Analisi daylights - Copia Fixed.3dm (7.5 MB)
Script sDA Finale Fixed.gh (105.5 KB)
Thank you so much! I understood everything and is a big change in our workflow in the studio. I want to ask you just one last question that a colleague said…do you know if there is another way to take the EPW files than the classical maps because is a bit vague. We apreciate your work a lot! Have a beautiful day!
Great @Stefano_Manias! I do not know of a better way to get EPW files. There might be other sources for the files which are specific for different countries but I believe the map from ladybugtools in the most comprehensive.
Hi Oscar,
I am experiencing the exact same issue regarding significant discrepancies between Daylight Autonomy results calculated via Cyclops versus Honeybee. In my current model, the DA difference reaches up to 40%.
I tried to review the checkpoints you mentioned in your reply to Stefano.
Could you point me towards the parameters or internal default settings that might cause such a large variation?
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.
Best regards,
HB : DA 28 %
Cyclops : DA 71%
DA-Cyclops T1 Test.gh (52.3 KB)
T1 Simple.3dm (1.0 MB)
DA-HB T1 Test.gh (64.2 KB)
Hi, @ANDRIANARIVELO_Maël,
A few things, many of which I mentioned already in my post above…
- The vectors in the Cyclops model are facing the floor.
- The points are moved up by 0.762m in the HB analysis but not in Cyclops analysis.
- The HB model is using completely different material settings to the Cyclops model.
- The default schedule in HB states 8AM to 6PM, which then means that we don’t include hour 18 in Cyclops. 8, 9… 17.
- The above brings the two analyses about 4% from each other, then we can tweak the analysis settings that don’t completely align which gets the results of the two analysis within 1% from each other.
I have attached your two grasshopper files edited and marked with red on the components that I’ve updated.
DA-Cyclops T1 Test_Updated.gh (56.1 KB)
DA-HB T1 Test_Updated.gh (70.6 KB)
Thank you so much for your explanations and for the updated versions.
Sorry for making you repeat points you had already explained in your previous post. First time for me. 
Thank you again for your support.
Best regards,