HLubke

Thanks for the feedback, Michele! And sorry for my hiatus. Have been some busy weeks and i could not invest time in this... Looking forward to the next update. Regards, Heiko

Some time and a few reviews ago i wrote about a bug in the energy loss diagram. Where the "detailed results" preview does not match the report (see: Energy loss diagram, bifacial (detailed results) (Ver 7.3.1)). I believe there is some problem with updating the values in the variant lists during multiple-year aging simulations. If i close the project and re-open it, the values are ok. But i cannot see much sense in closing the project and reopening it after every configurative or calculation step i do just to get a more reliable data display. This has costed me hours already for i was looking for causes of variant loss differences where in fact the displayed data was faulty. I was hoping the April update had solved theses issues because i do beliefe it is a problem in value list updating / saving before reading values for presentation. As a user, while doing these works, i want to concentrate on the project and work quality, not on understanding possible bugs and documenting them again and again for them not to be worked-on by a programmer... §@∆º∑ƒ∂√ª#! ???

Hi, two new issues on this topic: 1) IAM loss changes I created a model and used it as the basis for a multiple year simulation where i generated the additional yearly variants. Now, while the original simulation results in IAM losses of 0,36% the new variants contain IAM losses of 0,34% for all years. Not a single parameter changes except the resulting IAM loss. 2) Variant names The variants are cerated with names based on the original one. If the original is "VARIANT X", the variants receive an additional reference for the respective year, like in "VARIAN X Simulation for the year no 3". However, the name comes out concatenated as in "VARIANT X Simulation for the year no 1 Simulation for the year no 2 Simulation for the year no 3" and so on. This is a long name for 25 years... HELP!

Error still in new version 7.3.2. Additionally, now when in the aging tool I change the "Simulation every # years" number with the dial arrows, the list under the parameter choice does not change. When I write the number in the box and press enter, it does.

Hi Michele, i'll try to find a simple project with the error that i can share. I have seen it before... This one is owned by a client so i can't share..

Hi Tharcisio your first site has ~3.6% higher irradiation and soiling losses are different too. Also, Ajay's comment is valid. In the system all losses are balanced so that reducing on loss may cause another bottleneck to gain relevance and inclrease losses at another point.

Hi smeredith i understand the question is rather academic than practical and focusses on the mathematical modelling. I believe that for most practical design cases, the neglection of a second row's front side reflection on the rear side of the first row results in an extremely low error. The modules' IAM characteristics (i.e. high radiation absorption) avoids reflection as much as possible, after all. Maybe, with a N-S tracker with the sun at a low elevation (early, late daytime) and no backtracking some reflection on the rear side might occur. Am I missing something with practical relevance? Regards, Heiko

(Version 7.3.1, by the way...)

Hi i get bad values for the variables - View factor for rear side - Sky diffuse on rear side - Shading loss on rear side when the loss diagram is opened directly in the "detailes results" section. Here are two examples from the same data (same project, same simulation run result, same project and variant save...) The values in the report are ok, though. Regards, Heiko

Hi, when running a multiple year simulation and creating the yearly variants, these variants do not appear in the variant list after saving the simulation. The list is updated and the created variants appear in the list if i exit the project and re-open it. Probably the list loded into the user interface is not reloaded after the simulation. Heiko

Hi Brian! Did you configure the bifaciality details in the system section (button above the PV-module selection list) or did you just select the PV-modules with bifacial functionality? Regards!

Hi Emma, i believe the time shift could be related to the actual solar azimuth 90° time vs. 12h00. In other words, it's related to where in your time zone you are actually located. Does this make sense to you? Regards, Helu

Thanks @dtarin! This is exactly the feedback i received from PVsyst's André Mermoud today. He wrote: "Nothing has changed in the PAN and OND formats. In the most recent versions of PVsyst, you can always read any old file, produced by any older version of PVsyst. However the upward compatibility is not ensured: you cannot read files of the Version 7 with a version 6. Now the files may be corrupted. Sometimes people open them in a text editor, and this editor may change the control characters when saving." This actually leaves me more confident regarding the software's developments. As i am getting this problem with the files from major manufacturers, possibly the editor-bug may apply. It could be caused by a curious employee wanting "to check if there was a change" opening the .pan or .ond-file in an editor. I think I'll follow this lead and see what i can learn... Regards

Many thanks for your feedback, @satashi0123 ! I had this thought but discarded. My rationale was "the PVsyst team wouldn't release a new version without assuring downward compatibility on such a simple thing as the .ond. and .pan-file's data structure". Also, i e.g. made sure i got the most current .ond file Huawei issued for the 215KTL. It came from CN the day i got it and was still getting the same issue. This would mean the manufacturers are not made aware of such version issue by PVsyst. Should i really need to reconsider? Wouldn't this be a matter of capabilities of PVsyst as a product and as a company? Of whether a software like PVsyst would be better off if being developed on some sort of open source collaborative platform? Many multi-M-USD-investments, infrastructure planning etc. are relying of these simulations. Is there a reliability bias? :? Now that i wrote this it got me worried... :o Regards! P.S. I put all this up to the support directly. I'll let you know when i get feedback from support.

I still, again and again face the problem, now in a completely new PVsyst installation on a new machine with new database. Does anyone else see messages invalidating componentes due to "Invalid separator"? Is it me? :( Looking forward to hearing some idea... Regards