There is a new player in the NatHERS Software space, and it could be a game changer.
Background
For the last ten years, there have been only three accredited software providers able to satisfy the NCC’s requirement for reducing the heating and cooling loads of new Class 1, 2 and 4 buildings. Each of them used the Chenath engine developed by CSIRO, but each had a different interface, and each had its own pros and cons. The existing platforms are:
- BERSPro – visual-based, had to do quite a bit of work to get up to speed with the NatHERS requirements in the past few years.
- FirstRate5 – visual-based, used mainly by Victorian Assessors.
- AccuRate Sustainability – data-based, both engine and interface developed and maintained by the CSIRO. Generally, takes longer to model a dwelling, but has improved functionality.
This year, there has been a new entrant on the list of accredited House Energy Rating Software: HERO (Home Energy Rating & Optimisation), found at https://www.hero-software.com.au/.
Disclaimers
While I did some early trials in BERSPro software, the bulk of my assessing work over the last 5 years has been in the AccuRate Sustainability software. I’m still new to using visual-based software, and have only rated about 15 dwellings in HERO software at time of writing. Obviously, this article is my personal opinion, and is written to assist other Assessors in forming their own opinion of the software.
Any comments about House Energy Rating Software in this article is only talking about software accredited by the NatHERS Scheme for satisfying the Deemed to Satisfy requirements of Part 3.12.0.1 of the NCC, and is not discussing software for the Verification using a reference building method per V2.6.2.2.
Change
So, what is the new software like, and is it worth making the switch? Change is hard, and changing from a software that we are familiar with, that we can use easily, and that we have worked out how to make the most of, is hard. Even the idea of changing is hard! To become an Accredited Assessor using HERO software (and all thermal performance assessors should be accredited in my opinion) involves an investment of time and energy to work through the required tutorials and exam. This can be a big disincentive, and it is therefore so much easier to stick with what we know.
Before committing to the change, we want to know: “What is it like, and is it worth making the switch?”
My answer is yes, and here are my reasons why.
Usability
The software has been developed by Assessors for Assessors. There are numerous, little time saving functions that are just a delight to use because they have been developed to suit the way the Assessor thinks when assessing a project. For example, at the beginning of the project there is a useful tab through section where all the basic inputs of a project can be selected (e.g. default zone height, wall type, etc). In the data grid, the information can be sorted by clicking on the column header. This enables swifter checking and changing of things like material type, if required. Most things that you want to do (such as changing column widths or sorting in a particular way) can be done.
Training
For someone coming from an AccuRate background, the training needed to help me to use a very different style of software. The tutorials and Help Notes were fairly comprehensive, and gave a good overview of how to use the software.
The training is free, so can be undertaken with little investment – other than time. The training is self-paced, so there is no requirement to get it all done by a certain deadline (this could be a pro or a con, depending on your personality!). The software can also be downloaded at no cost, so potential users can have a play around at any time.
I recently had to do a 2 week stretch in hotel quarantine. Apart from doing my regular work, and watching lots of movies (I watched a lot of movies!), I spent time completing the HERO Accreditation course. I spent 18 hours and 21 minutes completing the training (the course online portal records this!), and I estimate that I also spent a further couple of additional hours with the video tutorial on pause whilst I practised or reviewed what was being taught.
The course will contribute 6 Technical CPD Points towards your AAO CPD requirements, so if you are looking to do the course purely for CPD points, it is good value for money in terms of points, but not in terms of time.
Support
As I undertook the training and started using the software, there were quite a few questions that I had. Some were because the training was not initially clear to me, but a lot were because I was coming from AccuRate and was unfamiliar with using the visual interface.
My questions were always answered by the software developer with promptness, patience, and a genuine desire to understand my issues so that the training and the software could be improved for all users. As HERO continues to be developed and improved, this continual program of improvement for the user will mean that this software will only get better.
When I was first using HERO (Version 1.0), some of the minor bugs and missing features (compared with AccuRate) left me in two minds about whether it was better than AccuRate. To be honest, it was also the experience of having to go back to the beginning and be a learner compared to an expert in a particular software. AccuRate was not perfect from a user’s point of view, but at least I knew it well and knew how to make the most its strengths and weaknesses! However, the tech support for HERO, and knowing that my opinions about how the software could be improved were taken into account, was what got me over the line. And now after using it further and seeing all the improvements already in version 1.1, I am glad that I persisted with the change.
Functionality
It works well! And considering the comments about the improvement agenda above, it is only going to get better.
On the whole, it is a pleasure to use, and is faster to model a house in than AccuRate. There are good defaults systems in the library, but easy functionality to add new constructions. The logic of entering default information early, importing the plans, and then working down the tools on the left-hand side menu works well. The data grid sets out all the information clearly, and so checking that everything has been modelled correctly is fairly straightforward.
There are still several features that HERO does not (yet) have that AccuRate has, but I am assured they are on the list of features to be added to future release versions:
- Ability to flip a design (for example, where townhouses have the same design, but the layout is flipped on the 90 or 180 degree axis).
- Ability to enter roof windows.
- Ability to individually set horizontal and vertical shade structure shading percentages per month of the year.
- Ability to set eave width manually (and therefore accurately), rather than visually.
- Ability to undo an accidental deletion of a wall or zone (Actually, AccuRate does not have this function either, but is easier to re-add than in HERO).
- Simple ‘single button’ upload of project to the Certificate portal.
Cost
The cost is a compelling benefit. There is no cost to undertake the training (apart from time), and no initial or ongoing cost to download and use the software. The certificates cost $22.50 each, which is comparable to other software. Note, the certificates are the only cost, there is no ongoing annual usage fee for the software.
Room for improvement
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. There are many little improvements that could be made to make the process of modelling a dwelling faster and more accurately. Some of these are listed above, others are things like:
- Being able to turn ortho on and off in the visual view.
- Having the window tool snap to multiples of 300mm.
- Being able to use tab rather than mouse to move between certain fields.
Verdict
I think HERO is worth making the switch to. It works well, is competitive on cost, and is only going to improve over time for the Assessor.
If you like everything tied up in a bow, you might want to wait for a couple of months until further improvements are incorporated. But otherwise, it gets a thumbs up from me.