All Activity

After Inserting the image, Just click on Modify button and move your image underneath the modules, Its just a click away.

The coordinate might not be the same exactly but i ensure is the same location.

Dear Andre, I hope all is well, I have a ground mount project and i would like to clarify the following points: A- Fixed Mount Variant: I made three variants (20Y Aging, 5 Day Unavailability), (1Y Aging, 5 Day Unavailability), (without Aging & Unavailability) 1- how the following value calculated (the global irradiance on rear side 201 W/m2), and from where this percentage come 8.4%. 2- You can see from the comparison (attached) when i consider the aging for 20Y & 5 days Unavailability (nothing else has been changed), some factors had been affected and all of them is understood, except the global irradiance on rear side it increase from 198 w/m2 to 201 w/m2. 3- My company is a developer Co., and they use financial model to evaluate the IRR, in this model they insert the aging as a fixed value 0.3 yearly, and it applied on the specific yield for 25years, my question is : I told them that by this way we are not considering the effect of 25Y aging on the other parameters as it clear showing in the loss diagram of PVSYST , almost 9 parameters has been effected by the aging, please if i wrong correct me. B- Dome Variant: As we know in the dome option the PVSYST will not allow to activate the Bifaciality function, so in the near shading i convert the domes to fixed table, I would like to confirm whether this solution was correct. Lastly, what is the way to send you the zip file of the project, just to have a look on the above solution that i made it to activate the Bifaciality feature in dome option? Your guidance on these above questions would be greatly appreciated.

For anyone wondering, it appears that this bifurcation is a result of soiling, since it disappears when soiling is set to 0% for each month. That said, it is still a mystery to me exactly how soiling values are affecting IAM.

Hello, Since the the power limitation is either in active or reactive power in PVsyst, adjusting the .OND file is indeed necessary to properly account for the inverter’s behavior at pf=0.85. In the output parameters in the .OND file, choose Apparent power and adapt the Nominal AC Power to 140 kVA in the Main parameters window. Make sure you rename the model and the file name to be used only in projects with a pf < 0.89 Regards,

Hello, Thank you for reporting those behaviors. I believe there are several issues, which I will report for future correction, but my interpretation is different: - There are indeed a unit problem with the apparent and reactive energy, which will be corrected in future version. In the report, the switching to Mega watt hour instead of kilo watt hour doesn't work well for those quantity. The numerical value displayed is correct by the "k" in the unit doesn't switch yet to and "M". You can change the unit of the report for a consistent display in "kWh" by going to "Report > Report Options > Final Report Options > Energy Units > kWh". - The name of reactive and apparent energy are correctly displayed in the report. Though it seems to me that you didn't allow "solar injection into the grid" in the "self-consumption" window. Therefore, no active energy is transferred to the grid from the solar production and reactive and apparent energy are equal: Note here that the reactive component is computed based on the solar energy available at the inverter's output, as E_Reac = E_InvOut * Tan(phi). Then the apparent energy is E_app = sqrt (E_Reac*E_Reac + E_Act*E_Act) Let me know if this makes sense for you. As I see that you are trying to simulate a scenario with a large consumption, you were maybe looking for a different behavior of the reactive energy. Luca

Dear Swonno, Can you explain what "origin feature in 3D scene" means? Also, could you share how you placed your PV tables and what type of tables you are using? In PVsyst, under Tools, there is an automatic altitude feature, but it works well only if all the tables are independent from each other. Regards,

Hi ! Indeed, currently the backside and reflected irradiance modeling is quite picky. The idea is that the geometry it assumes is that of trackers on flat ground. The discrepancy between 3D scene and backside irradiance model therefore leads to this message, to warn users of the possible inaccuracy. However, there is no alternative model, and the approximation of flat ground is not too bad if the slope is only 5°. In other words: You can change an advanced parameter to ignore the axis tilt message: Home window > Settings > Edit advanced parameters: I think a good way currently is to build fixed tilt structures first and then use the "transform to trackers" option: This will ensure that you can use the row-to-row slope options which are available for fixed tilt arrays (if I am not mistaken).

but if pvsyst created the orientation , how can i define the systemm part for each orientation?? i sent you now the zip file

Hello, the orientation has been created by PVsyst when you imported the PVC file. You have to define the system part for each orientation. If you need specific guidance, please send the zip file of your exported project to support@pvsyst.com

can someone respond me? I'm waiting for two days ,how can i resokve this problem??

@Hizir Apaydin Thanks, This is really helpful!

Hi Luis, I would like to know more about your vertical bifacial project. Would you share me your project location, DC, AC, mounting height with nos. of module in Y and X, and real time project result? I am planning to consider vertical bifacial in heavy snowfall locations. Waiting for your response. Regards,

Dear Swonno, In the report settings, it is possible to adjust the global energy production unit via Report options > Final report options > Energy unit, and you can also set the number of decimals for percentage values shown in the loss diagram. Regards

Hi Navid, Please edit this parameter inside "Project Setting" Hope this helps. Regards,

Dear PVSyst team, Hi, I'd like to study more about origin feature in 3D scene. Is there any specific explanation in doc which PVSyst released ? When I have different width rows(arrays) and use auto height adjustment feature, It seems not align , so if you have some material to be shared , Pls let me know. Thank you.

Hi Linda, I have similar question. I am using Huawei-125KTL-JPH0, mentioned that the pf range (0.8 lag- 0.8 lead) in the data sheet. This PCS has the nominal kW output of 125kW and max KVA rating is 140KVA. If you check the power triangle, pf can reduce to pf: 0.89 without compromising the active power output. and below this pf, PCS can not maintain the nominal active power output. In my case, Utility ask me to set the pf at 0.85. Is modify the pf inside (Energy management>power factor) enough to deal this case? Do I need to modify the ond file too? If pf is set at 0.9, I only modify the pf inside Grid management, but I am not sure it works for 0.85. I am looking forward for your response. Regards,

Hi Abeer, Above link will help you to know about the IAM loss. Just make sure you are using the correct pan file when doing the simulation. If manufacturer send you the pan file, you need to customize IAM, use PVsyst default depending on your module is AR coating or not. Same for the Relative efficiency at low light. Use default Rse to get the Rel. efficiency of -3% at 200W/m2. There is no problem if you use the pan file of the PVsyst database.

Or can i change the power generation unit GW to MW ? For small scale project, there are not huge gap but for large scale project having GW unit then there`s huge gap between Main result table Yearly sum data and Probability data.

Hi PVSyst team, I'd like know If i can change decimal basis point because there is a data gap between Balance and main result table and Probability distribution due to decimal value missing. Please let guide me. Thank you.

PVsyst v7 & v8: In the PVsyst Report (output PDF file), please note the ambient temperature of all inverter power ratings. For example, please include: Unit Nom. Power (~>50 oC) = 765 kWac where the "at 50 oC" is added. Similar to: Max. power (~> 25 degC) = 840 kWac Please see attached screenshot. Thank you!

Hello, The Sandia model is only an option for panels in the Sandia database. You can choose to filter the Sandia Database among the available panels and there you have an option to change to the Sandia model. In your print screen, you have defined the First Solar Spectral correction. By default PVsyst propose no spectral correction for crystalline modules

Hello, If the domes are placed along the tilted roof, you can simply add a "baseline slope" of 2° and the domes will follow the roof: In the case the domes would be placed perpendicular to the slope, it is less straight foreword. - By creating an array of domes, right click on the array and "ungroup", then mark all the tables and in the "Scene object", right click and use the "automatic altitude option". This is the alternative to right in the image, where the pair of domes are horizontal, though each pair are following the tilt of the roof. - By creating an array of domes, right click and "convert to domes to fixed tables", then mark all the tables and in the "Scene object", right click and use the "automatic altitude option". The altitude for each table will then precisely follow the tilt of the roof, though the tilt of the panels should be adapted to arrive compensate for the tilted roof. In the "list and management of objects (Ctrl+G), add 2 degrees to the tilt for the lower panels, and reduce the tilt with 2° for the upper panels. This is the alternative to the left in the image. I hope this answers your question

Hi, Indeed you should check the multi-MPPT feature and click on the Power sharing button to activate the power sharing feature (drag the sub-array from the list to the right to the configuration to the left). By defining this correctly, it would be expected to decrease the overload loss over nominal inverter power.

Thanks you for your response!!