All Activity

Hi all, I have started at a new company where PVsyst is the primary tool they use for generation figures etc. I have experience with using PVsyst but have not used it in depth for a while. One of our reports was produced on 8.0.13. I now have 8.0.16 (and no access to 8.0.16). When I open the project (which was produced on 8.0.13), it appears that, without me changing a single thing manually, some of the inputs are changed automatically. For example, the system is 33.91MWp & 24.96MW (comprised of 78 no. 320kW inverters). However, 8.0.16 automatically changed this to 88 inverters, so I had to manually revert it back to being 78. Another example is the bifacial losses and gains. I noticed that, again without me manually doing anything other than opening the project in a newer version, the report didn't show any bifacial losses in the losses diagram. When I looked into it, it's because in the bifacial system dialog, in the 'bifacial model' section, the 'don't use in simulation' box had been checked. To clarify this can't have been the case previously as these losses showed in the old report. So my two questions are: > Why is this happening and can I prevent this from happening? > I want to see what detailed losses and inputs my predecessor in the role put in for the design on 8.0.13. Without access to 8.0.13, is there any way I can find these? Thanks in advance

Hi there I understand that the inverter active power output should reduce if you call for reactive power. My query is more related to the impact that internal components have on the power factor at point of connection to grid. If I select 0.95 lagging for grid injection in Energy Management, I assume that PV Syst just assumes that this 0.95 is applied to all inverters? However, transformers or cables downstream may affect the power factor as well so that you have a higher or lower power factor at point of injection. Is my understanding correct? Regards Mike

Hi PVSyst team, Happy Thanks giving from Korea. Moving on the main point, There`re some situation typing in a box manually with different datas such as ground albedo, soiling losses. For a case above, When I type data monthly basis i use "tab" button but somehow it move to another box without my intention. For example, It moves to Sep to Apr , or Nove to July. I believe this can be solved easily and will give good user-friendly satisfaction to customers for program UI respect.

Dear PVsyst team, We often run large and complex simulations in which the shading computation (even using fast table method) takes up to several hours. Often we leave the machine working at night and get the results in the morning but we have no way to know when the computation actually ended. This info would be helpful for the future, so we can know in about how long we could run a new variant with similar shadings. While the computation is running, we can see how long it took so far so, when finishing, it would be enough to keep the last value of elapsed time on screen somewhere. Now it closes with the progress bar and there is no way to retrieve it (correct me if wrong). Would it be possible to add this functionality in a future patch? Best regards

Hello, We updated our website and the new URL is : https://www.pvsyst.com/en/products/old-versions/

Hello, We updated our website and the new URL is : https://www.pvsyst.com/en/products/old-versions/

Hello I used 3d auto batch zone feature and have been wondering why there are some module transprency existed in the edge of array. Can you explain what does it mean ? and what it can affect to simulation? Thank you.

I'm getting a 404 Error for URL: <https://www.pvsyst.com/old-versions/> (i.e., the link for downloading past versions of PVsyst) Thanks.

How to install previous version of PVsyst? The link is not working: https://www.pvsyst.com/download-pvsyst/

Dear ShivamPandey, Please email us your PVsyst LOG files (using menu <File> <Export logs>) at: support@pvsyst.com so we can analyze what happened and try to reproduce the issue you reported. Best regards.

Dear ShivamPandey, Please email us your PVsyst LOG files (using menu <File> <Export logs>) at: support@pvsyst.com so we can analyze what happened and try to reproduce the issue you reported. Best regards.

Hi I have an older Pvsyst project export zip file, but when importing it into PVsyst, it is showing the following errors. Older project is created witjh PVsyst 8.0.5 Zip Folder contains all the files exported. Same is the issues with the background image imported from map service within the near shading. Map is not showing up when imported into a different machine or PVsyst

PVsyst Having the same issues, any solution for this

All the most important losses are illustrated in the loss diagram that is generated after running the simulation. Here you can clearly see what kind of losses your project suffer from. The P90 will depend on the variability and uncertainties you define in the Energy management window.

Dear Andres, Unfortunately, this is a bug with PVsyst version 8.0.16 and we will fix it in future releases. The bug also affects importing "meteonorm software (*.hor)" data. In the meantime, several workarounds are possible: Import horizon data from meteonorm API ("horizon from web sources") Copying your .hor file in the PVsyst8.0_Data/Shadings folder and importing it with the "PVsyst internal file" option If neither options above work for your situation, reverting back to PVsyst 8.0.15 https://www.pvsyst.com/old-versions/ I hope this solves your issue

What are the factors that affect a high specific production and P90 value? I am working on multiple simulations and there is one simulation that always has a high yield (kWh/kWp/day) and I can't figure out why.

PVGIS horizon imports are currently not working properly as they are only importing 180deg of the horizon from 0deg to 180deg and not including -180deg to 0deg. This is a problem with both 5.2 and 5.3 currently.

Greetings all. The recently released version 8.0.16 introduced the feature of including object shading in the calculation of diffuse shading in 3D model. However, I noticed that when using this feature, the values for near shading losses do not match the values when using the ‘all trackers’ feature. All trackers: Custom tracker with object shading included: In addition, using the “object shading” feature causes the software to crash.

Dear Ziad, Without the project, I can’t know what the issue is. Could you please send us your project at support@pvsyst.com and explain what the issue is? Regards, Muhammed Sarikaya

Hello, There is something I can't fully understand , Shouldn't there be a limit for energy generation (Euseful) as Pnom ratio (DC/AC) is increased then Euseful should decrease again because of the overload losses? because I noticed that generation keeps increasing as i continue to add more strings for the same inverter till reached the max number of strings allowed. Thanks.

Hello, there is no dedicated building element for such a parapet. However you can use elementary shading object like parallelepiped all around the roof edge.

Hi Hizir, Thank you for your reply. I see the Regular and Bold for Airal Unicode MS fonts in the C:Windows>Fonts folder. Fortunately, my company installed an update for PVsyst this morning and now I can view and print reports again. Hopefully it will stay this way! Thanks again, Ben

Hi there, I’m struggling to model a parapet around my Near Shadings building in PVsyst. The parapet is 0.3 m wide and runs along the roof edges. Is there a recommended way to create this? I tried adding a 0.3 m-high wall around the building edges, but that feels a bit rudimentary. Is there a more efficient tool or feature for this? Thanks in advance!

The structure shading factor is design to reflect the area covered by the structures. The electrical effect of this shading should be reflected in the mismatch loss factor. Thus if I understand your example correctly, the mismatch loss factor should be set to 40% if 40% of a cell in the concerned sting is shaded. For the structure shading factor, define only the ratio of the area covered by structures to the photovoltaic area.

This is quite normal as you have defined a grid limitation of 1 kW (for a system of 200 kWp, 180 kWac). You can notice that the apparent value is 79 kVah, to be compared to a global delivery to the user of 224 MWh, i.e. 0.04%. Please note that you have the opportunity of completely forbid the injection to the grid when you define the self-consumption: