azein

Should I conclude it's not yet possible to simulate such inverters?

I'm having an issue simulating an inverter with 4 MPPTs. The thing is that they are unbalanced, while when "Unbalanced MPPT" option is ticked in "Additional Parameters/Secondary Parameters" of the inverter, only two MPPTs can be defined. Please let me know how to simulate such inverters?

Dear, The project list is currently sorted by alphabetical order. But once the list grows, it becomes hard to find the needed projects. I believe that it would be great to have an option to sort the projects by modification date.

Dear, In the help file, at section "Pump-Model Description, Pump model from Ip and FlowR as f(Head) with fixed voltage", you state that you are using the strong hypothesis that Pump Efficiency is constant when varying the voltage, with measured variations of the order of 15% for a given voltage range. Would you please let us know what mathematical model would you use for calculating the efficiency curves at different rotation speeds given only the efficiency curve at 50 or 60Hz?? Many Thanks,

Is there anyway to simulate AC Coupled off-grid systems: Grid-tied inverter + offgrid battery inverter?

Dear, Shouldn't LID losses be calculated in Stand-Alone simulations? I cannot see anywhere in the "Detailed Losses" where to define LID. Best,

Thank you Andre for the quick response. In this case, it means you are using the PVC insulation values from table B.52-1 of IEC 60364-5-52 and not XLPE, is that right? I understand this AC cabling tool is not meant to be used as a cable sizing tool, so probably that's why you do not offer to choose insulation type, ambiant temperature coefficient, cable grouping coefficient, but as a suggestion I think it may be helpful to add these 3 options in a drop list for a quick cable size estimation. About the voltage drop value, is it calculated from standard voltage drop tables (which are usually given for resistivity at 90 degreesC), or for resistivity at 50 degreesC ? Best wishes and thanks for the hard work,

Dear, In the new module you added to PVsyst lately, there is the possibility to account for AC losses, and PVsyst automatically detects the correct cable size. From my understanding, the cable sizes given are for Aluminium not copper, am I right? Also, can you explain how these wiring losses are calculated: fixed resistance value or temperature dependent? maximum current injection all the time or real current values used? cosPhi=1 or less? Best

Dear, I'm trying to figure out how to reconstitute the PVsyst Egrid Energy output from the following PVsyst variables outputs: GInc, Tarray, Pnom, and PR my logic is the following: The Pnom corrected for module temperature is Ptc=Pnom*(1+gamma(Tarray-25)), gamma being the temperature coefficient of the modules The Egrid_tc should be equal to Ptc*(Ginc/1000)*PR This "logic" considers that the "PVsyst solution" is all incorporated in the simulated module temperature "Tarray". The following extract table shows PVsyst output data and the two formulas listed above for one typical day. I would like to understand why the first column and last column are not equal (Egrid calculated by PVsyst, and Egrid_tc calculated in excel using the above formulas). I made sure to use the temperature coefficient gamma given in PVsyst .PAN file (0.0041). Is there another correction to be done? Many thanks, PS: Reference for the formulas used can be found here: http://cleanpath.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/news/SolarPro_Managing_Risks_June_2011.pdf

I'm trying to simulate a Miasole CIGS thin film panel ( MR107). There is no available .PAN file in PVsyst for this panel, so I tried to import from Photon databese, but the import dialog box says: "There were some errors when reading the PV module data set." I also noticed that there is no "CIGS" in the list of technologies in the "definition of a PV module" Please advise whether it is currently possible to simulate such a module. Best regards,

While making different variations for a big project, with a complicated string setup (cannot be set with the "auto attribution"string) , I noticed that it is currenty not possible to "Load" a module string layout definition from another variation. Enabling this possibility would be very helpful, especially if you implement a variation comparison function as you said. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that printing the Module layouts, the maximum papers printed are 2 papers, and thus if there is a big number of PV sheds, they don't fit. A solution I had found was to print on A0 papers, the maximum paper prints is 2, but it enables the print of more PV sheds. Best regards, Adnan

It's the same orientation for all the modules, but I have to shift some raws half a panel length so that it fits As for redefining the planes as independent rectangular areas, it is true I can do that. I would like to suggest that you add a "multi--selection" tool in the 3d shading, and a "grouping" tool, so that for example we can draw one part and then copy paste it elsewhere, but I think it would be a waste of time to develop complex drawing functions now, especially if you are planing to integrate a sketshup import function... That would be great, thanks for all your efforts, Cheers

Well, actually the latter problem mentioned seems to be more complicated than just positive/negative coordinates. As shown in the image below, the polygonal field is not correctly translated in the "module layout" for any "large" field. If I stick to something lower than about 14mx14m in the first quadrant, the translation is done correctly. Once I go bigger than this area, the translation becomes wrong (does not fit into the screen, and the "grayed" area, where the modules are placed, is reduced)

Hi, I am using polygonal field to draw a complex PV roof. By default, PVsyst arranges the modules as in the drawing below to the left. The way I want it is on the right hand side of the image below. I tried all the possibilities of "module Arrangements" in the "Module Layouts", with no success. Is it possible to have the modules as in the right image? Many thanks, Adnan ps. I noticed that if the polygonal field "summits" defined in the shading scene contains negative coordinates (X ,Y), then in the "Module Layout", the area of this field would not be correctly read. Defining only "positive" coordinates resolves this problem, but maybe you should give it a small fix. (2nd image as illustration)

You are absolutely right about that, PVsyst is really good enough, and I believe there are other upgrades that are more urgent than this. multi-heterogeneous orientations will maybe come later, especially that PV modules are getting cheaper and cheaper and so the perfect orientation is becoming less critical and installers will put PV panels on most of the available surfaces. As for the micro-inverters, it is certainly more appropriate on such systems, but honestly I haven't used micro-inverters on any of my projects. I should definetly do a cost comparison. By the way, how would you estimate the production of microinverters?!