All Activity

Indeed, this is interesting. As you say, changing the backtracking pitch can be done in PVsyst, but not a different one for morning and evening. Thanks for the feedback !

Hi Evan, Thanks for the project file. Indeed, PVsyst has a problem with the "Shadow Casting" setting on PV fields. According to the documentation (https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/shadings/partial-shadings-and-calculations.html?h=casting#shadow-casting) this setting should not prevent PV fields to receive shadows from surrounding “shadow casting” objects. I have raised a software change request to address this issue. In the meantime, please turn the shadow casting for all your PV objects ON (setting by default). Cannot really think about a scenario requiring the shadow casting of PV trackers field tuned OFF anyway. As far as I can see non-PV Objects behave as expected, they cast shadow on PV fields according to their settings. Best regards, Eric

Hi Eric, I checked and the partial shading calculations is not on. I have emailed the example project file as a follow-up. Thank you for your help, Evan

Hi Evan, Thanks for posting on the PVsyst forum. Can you check you don't have the "partial shading calculations" turned ON ? https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/shadings/partial-shadings-and-calculations.html?h=partial#shadow-casting Alternatively, if you can export your project and send it to : support@pvsyst.com , I will be happy to take a look. Best regards, Eric

Dear Customer, Please send an email to PVsyst support at: support@pvsyst.com with your PVsyst .log files (that you can easily export using menu <File> <Export logs>) so we can analyze what happened. Best regards.

Dear Arisk, Unfortenately, this is not possible. Regards,

Hello, In PVsyst 8 (replicated in 8.08, 8.10, 8.11 on multiple computers), there is a near shading bug when only some objects (not all) are selected to cast shadows, shading drops to zero when there should still be shading from the objects selected to cast shadows. I've attached screenshots from an example project demonstrating the bug. Shade scene: Shading loss (zero):

When I try to access my interactive map, it's not available because of my internet connection, but my internet is working without any problems. How can I fix that?

This occurs on uneven terrain. For example, in a plant with east-to-west slopes and a homogeneous pitch, shadows can differ significantly between morning and afternoon. To minimize shading, it's common to set a lower (fictitious) backtracking pitch than the real one when the tracker is facing uphill (either east or west, depending on the case). I know I could simulate this using two separate PVsyst simulations and then combine the results, but of course, it would be better if this could be configured directly in PVsyst. Thanks!

Hello everyone, Is it possible to create a report per MPPT, string or sub-array? I read in an old forum post from 2015 that this wasn’t possible back then. I would like to analyse the power losses due to shading per string. Thanks for your help!

PVsyst V8.0.10 -> Grid-connected -> Load Demo utility project (_DEMO_Utility.PRJ) -> VC4 -> Detailed losses -> Ohmic Losses -> Uses a HV transformer -> Dropdown menu HV to MV Transformer does not work.

Hi. Thank you for the additional information. PVsyst reads the content of the PVC files and applies a translation if X/Y/Z are not 0. If you don't get the expected results, maybe there is an issue with the PVC files. Can you send us the 2 files by email at support@pvsyst.com? We will check further to identify the source of the issue.

Hi Stèphane, thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, by setting "Automatic" and to set X, Y and Z to 0, it overlaps in a wrong way the two plots. It seems that PVsyst considers the centre of gravity of the trackers and not the one of the perimeter. I report here below a screenshot of the outcome: the two perimeter should be perfectly overlapped and the structures should be complementary.

Dear Ville, Unfortunately, with a central inverter in PVsyst, it's not possible to perform what you want to do. You can try to modify the OND file by allowing multiple MPPTs, but this will not reflect reality. Regards,

Hi. On the import window of the PVC file, you need to uncheck "Automatic" and to set X, Y and Z to 0: This way each plot will be imported at its original location.

Hello, While working on simulations using the Self Consumption option, I have noticed that the results seem to reflect the behavior of a PV system fully integrated into a local installation. However, in the context of virtual net billing projects, the way the Unused Energy (grid limitation) is calculated does not seem fully accurate. Specifically, the model appears to prioritize the self-consumption of the load first, and only afterwards considers the grid limitation when calculating unused energy. In virtual net billing schemes, where the PV system is not physically connected to the load but compensation is done financially, this logic does not apply directly. The priority should be given to the grid limitation independently of any local consumption. Is there any planned feature or workaround to correctly simulate this behavior in PVsyst? If not, could you please consider implementing an option for such cases in future updates? Thank you in advance for your support.

PVsyst 8.0: I’m modeling a grid-tied, zero-export PV system (no batteries) and encountering an issue where the grid supplies power even when solar generation is available.For example, in January, Solar should cover all possible load (73.7 + 82.2 ≈ 156 MWh), leaving only 25 MWh to the grid. Instead, the grid supplies 107.5 MWh, and 82.2 MWh of solar is wasted. I have set grid limitation to 0 kW (no export) and applied at the inverter level.

Thank you very much for your help Regards!

Let's imagine you have a 100 MWdc PV system with: - Split Si PV module design using half-cut PV cells in Orientation #1 with split partitioning, and - CdTe PV module design in Orientation #2 with no split partitioning How do you assign: - "according to module strings" with 100% "fraction for electrical effect" for Orientation #1, and - "linear shadings" for Orientation #2 ? Please advise. Thanks.

Hello, The cause of the drop appears to be the irradiation. Do you know why this could occur, it seems unrealistic.

Hi, I need to do yield calculations for a project that uses central inverters. Most of the block use only one PV module type and the system definition is straightforward but in few inverter blocks the customer has used two different PV module types with one inverter. I have fiddled around with orientations and sub arrays in PVsyst 8 but haven't found a good solution for this yet. Any ideas how to proceed with the system definition? What I want to achieve, for example, is a system where I have one central inverter, X strings (length 28) of PV module type A + Y strings (length 25) of PV module type B. Is this possible?

v7 and v8: Typo in the word "proportional"

Suggestion to add a third option for the ac losses power reference value, namely, a custom user-defined input value field. The reason for this is that sometimes ac losses are not defined at either of the two (2) presently available toggle options in PVsyst, namely, "PNomPV(ac) at STC" or "PNom (inverters)", but rather at some other ac losses power reference value (e.g., driven by the grid limit). Thanks.

Apologies if this is documented somewhere and I missed it (if so, please feel free to point me to the already existing answer). Are "secondary parameters" used in PVsyst's numerical simulations? Or, are these just informative settings? The only help documentation I can find says: "Secondary parameters": sometimes useful parameter. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Please advise. Thanks.

Apologies if this is documented somewhere and I missed it (if so, please feel free to point me to the already existing answer). Would you please explain how the internal transformer settings in the PVsyst .OND file are applied? Or, are these just "informative" settings? Thanks.