## 3 Results and Discussion  
An analysis of the results of light measurements in the selected hall, as well as improvements represented by changing the colors of the interior surfaces using RADIANCE software, was performed. This part begins by measuring the light parameters in the hall and those that were obtained from a direct simulation of the current situation performed by RADIANCE. An estimate of the accuracy of the simulated results was then determined. After this calibration/tuning of the model, the following cases were studied: (1) wall color change; (2) ceiling color change (same model); (3) simultaneous color change of walls and ceiling (same model). As mentioned above, the test study included measurements from 60 points in the hall. Subsequently, simulations for 14 different surface color combinations were performed at these points. Table 4 and Figure 8 show the calculated daylight factor (minimum, maximum, and average values of the daylight factor) for different surface color variants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Variant of Surface Color** & **DF\({}_{\text{min}}\) (\%)** & **DF\({}_{\text{max}}\) (\%)** & **DF\({}_{\text{average}}\) (\%)** \\ \hline
0 & Current Case & 0.440 & 6.960 & 4.830 \\
1 & Sim1 & 0.239 & 6.899 & 3.170 \\
2 & Sim2 & 0.759 & 7.589 & 4.047 \\
3 & Sim3 & 0.615 & 7.269 & 3.822 \\
4 & Sim4 & 0.389 & 7.038 & 3.503 \\
5 & Sim5 & 0.670 & 7.254 & 3.849 \\
6 & Sim6 & 0.823 & 7.645 & 4.095 \\
7 & Sim7 & 0.881 & 7.655 & 4.315 \\
8 & Sim8 & 0.649 & 7.222 & 3.864 \\
9 & Sim9 & 0.695 & 7.421 & 4.053 \\
10 & Sim10 & 0.998 & 7.855 & 4.445 \\
11 & Sim11 & 0.268 & 6.720 & 3.289 \\
12 & Sim12 & 0.564 & 7.445 & 3.748 \\
13 & Sim13 & 0.386 & 7.127 & 3.450 \\
14 & Sim14 & 0.620 & 7.204 & 3.874 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Results of calculated DF by simulation program for variants of surface color.  
The room was divided into 5 bands A, B, C, D, E, and 12 rows, which equals 60 measuring and calculation points.  
According to [PERSON]'s method, we determined the weights and the importance of the results obtained. The most important individual alternatives were the average values of the daylight factor DF, the less significant minimum DF values, and the least important maximum DF values. The maximum DF values can be reached at some points closest to the translucent openings, the lowest at the most shaded and remote locations, which may not affect the overall result. We chose the analytical hierarchy process weights in the ratio \(\text{DF}_{\text{average}}/\text{DF}_{\text{min}}/\text{DF}_{\text{max}}\) (%)  
The results for the calculation of all alternatives can be seen in Figure 9a), and ranked according to significance (see Figure 9b).  
The most suitable solution is for sim10, followed by sim7, sim6, and sim2. The least significant are sim1, sim11, sim4, sim13, sim0 (current case), and sim12. Accordingly, the biggest differences are in the most appropriate solutions. As already mentioned, the most suitable, i.e., the most important, are sim10, sim7, and sim6 because their results are the most significant.  
The smallest differences are in the middle from sim5 to sim12 and small differences from sim12 to sim11 (see Figure 9b). For these small differences, we present the calculation of DF simulations for the selected color combinations in Figure 10.  
Figure 8: Calculated DF factor maximal, minimal, and average values.  
Figure 9: (a) AHP for 7 selected alternatives. (b) AHP for three variants of DF ratios according to importance.  
Figure 10: _Cont._  
Here it can be seen that the results in the plan view and in the section are negligible for the selected variants of reflectivity (color solution).