Cove.tool saves time by allowing anyone to export their building geometry from a growing library of 3D modeling software. Currently supporting Autodesk Revit, SketchUp, and Rhino/Grasshopper workflows, the plug-ins are created to easily take a user's building geometry straight form the working 3D Model and create a performance (energy, water, daylight , cost) model inside cove.tool. So is there a difference when you use an mechanical model over an architectural model for a plugin export process?

The answer will depend on whether the model you are using contains the objects and values needed to create a performance model inside cove.tool. In order to run an accurate building performance analysis, the building components needed to calculate and output accurate building performance metrics is the size and envelope make-up of your building. This include floor, walls, windows, roofs and skylight objects. If the model you are working with contains these objects then you should be able to use it for the export process whether is an architectural or mechanical model.

The cove.tool plugin exports the surface area, and placement/organization of these building components in order to recreate the envelope conditions necessary to make an energy model. All architectural models will have these components. However not all mechanical models will. Depending on how your model integrates with the architectural model will determine whether or not you will be able to use cove.tool's plug-ins. For example, a Revit Mechanical Model with the the buildings envelope objects existing as a linked file, has a chance of not working because of the limited access to the building's envelope geometry.  Having the original model is ideal, for a mechanical model with full access to architectural components should be able to use the plug-in error free.

Did this answer your question?