All Activity

Hi, The number of inverters shouldn't impact the workaround since it was defined by the power triangle in the case of a single inverter.

Hello, I cannot manage to reproduce this issue. Does the issue persist if you close the window and open it again? Which version are you using?

Some answers to your questions: Module Mismatch Losses: Currently set to 1%. - This depends on the sample of PV modules you are installing. Not on the technology. String Voltage Mismatch Losses: Currently 0.1% - Idem, by the way this is an extremely small correction.. Module Quality Loss: Default. - This is a parameter at your disposal. You can put here what you want. But the default is based on the tolerance, it doesn't depend on the technology. LID Loss Factor: Set to 0% for N-type modules. It is indeed null for N-type cells. Otherwise the value should be set according to the manufacturer if available. For example, HPBC claims better shading performance — can mismatch losses be reduced? - This is indeed implemented in the ModuleLayout calcuation. But don't wait for a significant improvement of the shading loss ! (see the Help https://www.pvsyst.com/help/physical-models-used/pv-module-standard-one-diode-model/pv-module-reverse-lowvoltage.html?h=ibc Are there other parameters I should modify to better reflect these technologies? - If modifications are necessary, they will be in the PV module definition and modelling. We are currently studying this but we don't have definitive conclusions yet. The main workaround we can propose in the present time is to increase the Voc specified at STC when you cannot establish the one-diode model (i.e. when the RSerie cannot be specified for the required low-light performance).

While that is being investigated, in the past, these types of issues were caused by the default program assumptions overriding the project settings. The default value is 0.02. In the main PVsyst menu under advanced settings, set the default to 0.00 or 0.01. Import your shade scene where things are showing up correct, save, and reopen to check. The warning about tables not defined by modules is not material in most cases.

Thank you for your prompt reply - I will first need to check with my system administrator.

Hello, You have an explanation in the blue square in the upper right corner. In sub-array #3 you have 15 MPPTs, in a configuration of 18 inverters, thus it is not a multiple between the number of MPPTs and number of inverters. Of the 18 inverters, some would have 1MPPT from this sub-array and other would have 2, this must be premised when defining the sub-arrays and the configurations. The use of the Power sharing tool is further explained in the following tutorial:

Good day! Why do I get this error, please help?

and also please let me know is it ok to import 3D scene as a .DAE file in Pvsyst version 8.0.7?

Hello Toni, The location of the downlaoded installer might have some permission restriction, preventing you to save it. You can try by downloading directly from our website : https://www.pvsyst.com/download/latest

Thank you for your reply - I am using the version 7.4.7 (rev. 37278). When starting PVsyst during booting it's searching fo updates, however when I click on help-> update program I receive a failure messaage (see image below): Do I need to upgrade to new versions to enable updates ? Thanx for any help....

Hi I will update directly at support@pvsyst.com. Thank you for consideration.

Refer attached snip showing the message when I click on import

Hi Team, I select the site from the interactive map and after accepting the selected point on the map, I am not able to import the Meteo data of the site. Refer attached snips. I am using the latest version 8.0.9

Hello, When modeling advanced module technologies like HPBC, PERC, TOPCon, HJT, IBC, or Perovskite/Tandem in PVsyst, should I adjust these parameters? Module Mismatch Losses: Currently set to 1%. String Voltage Mismatch Losses: Currently 0.1%. Module Quality Loss: Default. LID Loss Factor: Set to 0% for N-type modules. For example, HPBC claims better shading performance — can mismatch losses be reduced? Are there other parameters I should modify to better reflect these technologies? Thanks for your advice!

I see. Can you please send your load profile (.csv file in correct format) as well as your project as a .zip file to support@pvsyst.com and we can have a closer look at it

Thank you Linda, unfortunately that is not the case, there are many day light hours of usage. Could this be a bug?

Hello, Could it be that the energy demand defined in the CSV file occurs during hours with no production? It seems that the load profile was imported correctly (283 MWh/year), and the energy demand is fully supplied by the grid (energy from grid to user: 283.33 MWh).

Hi, my issue is that I have successfully uploaded a HH dataset into the software, but still the report is showing a solar fraction of 0%: This then shows in General Parameters: But still the solar fraction is showing as 0 ratio: Why is no energy going to the user from the solar? Thank you for your support.

Hello Niken. Thank you for submitting this observation. We're going to investigate this and if we can confirm the issue, we will fix it as soon as possible. Don't hesitate to request update directly at support@pvsyst.com. Regards UPDATE: please send both projects PVsyst 7.4 and 8.0.6 since we need the definition of the subarrays to have modules dimensions

Hi Linda, Thank you for your prompt response. For the plant with 20MW grid limitation and 0.85 pf, we can connect 168 nos. of pcs instead of 160, right?

@JamesLenton indeed, and glad that it worked !

@SPdesai Sorry it seems there was a wrong sign in my answer above. I have corrected it. The sign is positive. We are adding it back, indeed. Indeed, we expect that the rear POA sensor will not be shaded (mostly) by mounting structures or cables.

I don't why I posted this question on "suggestions forum", it shall be on "PV components" may be. My bad.

In PVsyst you have the possibility to import weather data from various weather data providers. If you are using the same weather data, indeed the Global horizontal irradiation will identical.