Online tool to plan (Walm-) roof

Is the long side facing south?

The location is perfectly oriented towards the south – only a 2-degree deviation. Therefore, I had the idea to make the trapezoidal sides slightly larger so that the southern orientation can be better utilized. That’s why, in the third photo, I looked at how it would behave if the ridge and thus the trapezoidal area were a bit wider. This would result in the east and west sides being steeper. I suspect this would have a positive effect on the yield during the transition seasons (autumn/spring), as the sun is not as steep in these seasons. However, maybe it’s also pointless to align the geometry of the roof according to the photovoltaic system … or maybe what I imagine is technically not possible…?

Hip roof is on average also more expensive. The south side is overrated. With east-west, you have a more even load throughout the day without necessarily having to store - your peak power is lower, yes, but in return you have more usable sun hours. More peak also means that the inverter and storage must handle that much power at once, which makes the system more expensive again. Having to store more also means more storage losses. At 30°, the side between eaves and ridge is at least 4.50m long net, so if you then switch to transverse orientation, at least one more module fits there. Basement storage is multiple times more expensive than above-ground storage. But if you have the money. Sure? No knee wall at all? That would be unusually strict. Is that explicitly stated or does it simply say no knee wall at all and only that no 2 full stories are possible? Often a knee wall results from maximum eave height, roof pitch, and ridge height without anything explicit about the knee wall being mentioned.

That would be unusually strict.

What do you expect? It is a weekend house area, so a recreational area. Garden floors are in my opinion the mentioned basement floors, there is no more basement below. The only sensible option is a gable roof to create living space underneath.

You, I visited a "Gartenlaube" here in Berlin shortly after the turn of the millennium, which felt bigger than my house. In any case, eight of us stayed there overnight, and I was alone in the room while the others were not all in one room but paired off in separate rooms. It had an upper floor and a basement. So regulations don't always have to be excessively restrictive. Today, of course, things look different here as well. But back then, I was still paying 260 EUR gross cold rent for my 50m² place, and you could get 1000 m² of land in my current neighborhood for 50,000. However, I find such an extreme restriction on making sensible use of the upper floor pointless anyway. Because if the height itself is already allowed, I don't understand why they don't want to allow a vertical wall. The view is gone anyway, and the shadow is there anyway.

That would then result in the east and west sides being steeper.

Maximum pitch 30 degrees, nothing steeper than that.

Here are some photos from the neighbor.





He has all 4 sides covered. However, with less roof pitch.

So, we have a gable roof with 26 degrees and living spaces upstairs. It is simply a one-story building. That’s why I asked about the development plan, because I believe in interpretation errors.