All Activity

I have a variant of a project in which the 8760 file shows that E_Grid column is not reaching the defined "Grid power limitation" of 25 MW in "Energy Management" and yet there is some energy discarded as EGRdLim in the 8760 file. What makes it more confusing is that I'm copying from a variant that is working well, and just changing the orientation to domes. I'm attaching a capture of some of those cases. Any thoughts on what I may be missing? Thanks!

Hi Greg, In PVsyst the grid-tied systems with storage will never charge the batteries from the grid. The non-zero values for EFrGrid are situations where PV generation and battery discharge together are not enough to cover the load, and therefore power needs to be imported from the grid. This typically happens at the end of the night and early in the morning when batteries may be discharged and PV generation is still low. It can also happen after a series of cloudy days that did not allow to fully charge the batteries.

Hello, It seems to be linked to one of the new tolerances put in the new version that when the angle between your average orientation and at least one of your PV table is too high compared to the settings of your projects. To fix this error you need to increase this tolerance. From the main window of your project, click on "Project settings" at the top of the screen: Then you need to select the "Other limitations" tab and increase the value of the "Maximum orientation difference for defining average (spread) orientation" parameter: Once the value has been increased the error should disappear.

Hello, The clearness index will be evaluated and compared with the clear day model for the same time period. Thus having only a few months of data will not be an issue. If you compare the data for 2025 with data for 2024, are they similar or are indeed the values for 2025 much lower?

Hello, Indeed the workflow would be to precisely define the coordinates for where the site, define the MEF file and run the conversion of the data. If PVsyst suggest a time shift, go back to the MEF file and define the indicated time shift and run the conversion again. If the issue persists, please send your data to support@pvsyst.com and we can have a closer look.

Hi, I am simulating a large-scale ground mounted PV project with fixed tilt orientation. Due to the slope of the terrain, each PV table has a slightly different orientation. When importing the H2P file, I get the error as shown below. In Version 7, I remember I was able to adjust the tolerance in the Orientations Management tab. That seems not possible now. Could you please let me know how to resolve this? Many thanks!

Hello, This is possibly by creating two "orientations". Thus create one orientation for each pitch (even though they have the same orientation) and assign the bifacial parameters individually for each orientation.

Hi, you can export an Output File with any relevant parameters through the Advanced simulation window.

Hi Linda, how can I extract these data?

Good afternoon PVsyst team, My name is Nuno and I work at Universal Kraft as a PV Design Engineer. I am posting this message to report a bug that our technical team came across with this new version of PVsyst (8.0.12). When simulating the hourly (energy) production profile, the PVsyst report (.pdf) shows the energy produced in kW/year which must be kWh/year and, besides this, the value presented has 3 order magnitude difference. This means that the value presented in the PVsyst report (kW/year) should be MWh/year. Could you please verify/confirm if this happening with other costumers or if this is a problem that only our team is facing. Thank you so much for your support. PS: I tried to upload the reports but the forum is returning an error (Error code: -200)

Hi All, I am currently using PVsyst version 8.0.9 and in the 3D scene, I am trying to export a .pvc file created with PVcase in which there are two different pitch values. While activating the bifacial features, I encounter an issue that does not allow to compute the simulation since the pitch is not sufficiently homogeneous. With PVsyst 8.0 is there a way to simulate in the same variant bifacial system with different pitch values? Am I trying to get the simulation in one single variant and not in two variants (one with a pitch of 9m and the other with pitch of 12m) and do the post-calculation. The reason is that I am trying to identify the impact of shadow casting of wind turbinesand those wind turbines are near trackers with both 9m pitch and 12 m pitch. Below, there is a screenshot of the problem. Any help is really appreciated. Best regards, Vinh

Dear Greg, If you don’t want to import energy from the grid, it’s considered a stand-alone project. I suggest running your simulation as a stand-alone system. In a grid-connected project, the grid supplies energy when the system can’t meet the user’s demand. See my screenshot below: Regards,

Good afternoon, I have created a new SIT file and I want to make a customized MET file with another source file. While making the MEF file I have selected -1 Time shift, with universal time. Neverthless I am receiving a message that I should specify an Hour shift of -1 in the format file and reimport. How can I manage to change the shifted time so it is complying with the Clear Day model? Kind regards

Hello, I wanted to create a custom imported meteo file for a location in Germany for 2025. The real data is available from Jan, 2025 until today. As I import the weather data I get an error due to clearness index of best days is way too low with respect to celar day model. Is it because PVsyst’s clear-sky model expects the year to include summer months (June–August), when irradiance and clearness index are highest. If my dataset ends in May, PVsyst looks for the “best” days in spring or winter — which naturally have lower solar angles and less irradiance, even on clear days. So even the “best” days don't look clear enough compared to what they should be. Or can it be due to a different issue? For the same location I could create custom imported files from 1993-2024 so only 2025 gives the error. Thanks a lot in advance!

The multi-MPPT feature and how to configure different sub-arrays to precisely define your system is explained in the following youtube tutorial:

OK，thanks.

No, due to by-pass diodes, the hot spot situation is not supposed to arise in normal operation.

Hi, I'm currently designing a 35 MWp grid-connected solar farm with a 100 MWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). The system is configured so that the BESS charges exclusively from the PV array — not from the grid. However, after exporting the hourly data from PVsyst, I noticed that values appear for EFrGrid (energy from the grid). When reviewing the simulation settings, I couldn’t find an option to disable grid import explicitly. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there a specific setting or workaround to ensure the simulation fully restricts energy import from the grid? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you!

Hi, I'm currently designing a 35 MWp grid-connected solar farm with a 100 MWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). The system is configured so that the BESS charges exclusively from the PV array — not from the grid. However, after exporting the hourly data from PVsyst, I noticed that values appear for EFrGrid (energy from the grid). When reviewing the simulation settings, I couldn’t find an option to disable grid import explicitly. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there a specific setting or workaround to ensure the simulation fully restricts energy import from the grid? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you!

Will the temperature increase and power decrease when local solar cells of photovoltaic modules experience hot spots be considered in the power generation simulation？thanks

I have 2 orientation. 1 with 28 panels x 440 Wp, and 2 with 16 panels x 440 Wp. I have inverter Deye SUN-15K-SG01HP3-EU-AM2 with 2 MPPT/ 2+1 string Input. What is optimal configuration.

When testing a few items for an internal standard about bifaciality I noticed the following item. Example project has a 3 portrait table with a 1m gap at the bottom and a 20 cm gap at the top. Basically when you have an east west system and you follow the pitch from the design it showcases the following: https://i.gyazo.com/4194337c998195b65b7d92bf96de2adb.png It looks like it keeps the entire space free instead of showcasing the other modules which will block the light from reaching the ground. This becomes apparent when you see the kWh/m² that gets produced extra. https://i.gyazo.com/70699f6dd7df697417825ba81073e433.pnghttps://i.gyazo.com/35ea7a63767ddf32e9e28ebc773525ca.png I solved it for now by giving it an interrow spacing of 1m to more accurately showcase the ground yield, even in this case it seems to be higher than that of a normal ground project.

Dear RahSolar, Can you please send us your project along with the 3D scene you are using to support@pvsyst.com so we can better understand the issue? I suspect that you are using a 3D file with a larger PV area than what you declared in the system window of the software. Regards,

I have emailed the model. @Michele Oliosi Thank you!

Hi, For hourly estimation of both the production and the specific losses, you can export an Output File with any relevant parameters through the Advanced simulation window. From the hourly/daily values generated, you can do any analysis in an external tool such as excel.