Konstantina

Dear Andre, regarding slow and fast simulation of a small system I got almost the same results. But in general slow simulation is more accurate because it omputes the full shading factor at every step, or not? Also I can not understand the option Detailed Electrical Lossses. It is connected with the precise localization of each PV module of the system, so the user should design the system in the option Module Layout part? And then there shloud be a difference in the report results? I tried but nothing changed. Thank you very much

I also got error 92 for the simulation with the tracking titled or horizontal N-S axis , any ideas?

Dear Andre, I am simulating a 12 MW system, with tracking titled or horizontal N-S axis with axis titled 0° and I design my scene too but the shading factor table takes a really long time around 2 hours. Is that possible?Also I checked again for 12MW, with tracking horizontal axis E-W and again the time of calculation wwas the same. Should I change something in my parameters? My panels face East and the pitching is 1 meter. Thank you in advance.

Dear Andre, the value of irradiance that appears in the simulation result (the first number in the diagram of the report) in kWh/m2 is the horizontal irradiance without any losses at all?There are not cloud losses? And if I want to find the cloud losses how can I find them, there are in the meteo databases? Thank you very much.

Dear Aandre, I am running some simulations with heterogenous orientation. I read that the shading loses are not added but the array characteristics are electrically combined, in order to provide the real maximum power point. So, that means that the Array nominal energy and the fianal output energy are the sum of both heterogenous fields? So these numbers are for the total field? I am confused because according to my Power for my PV field ( in the System Option )the area is only half of what the PVsyst wants me to design in the Linear Shading Construction option. Thank you very much.

Dear Andre, I have seen some differences in shading losses between the version 5 and 6. 1. In version 6 the horizon losses are higher than 5 (I have done some simulations for different sites in Europe with always using the same mountain size in my horizon). Why is that happening?Should not be the other way around? 2.The shading losses in 6 are smaller than in 5. That is due to the direct shading factor calculation that tha last version uses? So, there are no interpolation in time uncertainties in the shading factor table?So, no time interpolation uncertainties regarding mutual shadings too? 3.Also, using the same inverter and PV modules the mismatch losses and the quality losses are in every case for each version the same.For 5 they are higher than 6 but in every site the same.The same results in the quality losses are due to the fact that I use the same PV system in every case and the exact same scene? But about the mismatch losses, why in every simulation is fixed?Should not be the same for every site that I use because they have to do with the shading or not to a cell that can drive the current of the whole string. And in different geographical sites that differs or not, (although I have the same PV system and the same scene)? Thank you very much.

Hello dear Andre, I would like to ask how the global incident coll.plane is calculated.Does it depend from the geographical coordinates or the irradiance? Also in order to find the effective irradiance on collectors, this global incident in coll.planes is added to the irradiance or not? Thank you very much.

Ok Andre, thank you for your help.Unfortunately I do not have this program so I will do it by changing the angle in my axes like you suggested.:)

Dear Andre, usually data derived from satellite overestimate the irradiance value such as NASSA in PVsyst. The reason for that is the larger errors that take place much often and the quality control which is much harder in these cases, or I got it all wrong ? Thank you!

Hello, I was wondering if it is possible in PVSYST5 or PVSYST6 to draw my own scene and introduce different terrain fields, for example not just a flat field but a field which would have a small curve or a dump.In general not a flat terain but rather rough one.Can I do it by building one object above another one with different inclination in order to achieve that or not? Is there even better, an option for not flat terrains which helps you with that? Thank you very much.

ok, now I understand the differences but about irradiance between Meteonorm and NASSA is the other way around.NASSA over estimates these values because it uses satellite measurements so the errors that occur and the quality control is much harder, right?

Hello again, I am wondering if I can see the exact hourly or daily data of the Temperature file in PVsyst 6 or 5, regarding the database Meteonorm6 in order to be able to compare them with other dagtabases such as NASSA and PVGIS.I have tried to open the file with the Temperqture but I only see the monthly values. Thank you!

Dear Andre, Running some simulations between version 5 and 6 I noticed some differences in Temperature losses as well as in the loss due to the irradiance. There are differences also in the mismatch losses and quality but that you have already mentioned.I have always used the Perez model in both cases and the same meteo and temperature data, so why these differencies still happening?

I finally found my mistake. I was choosing linear shadings whereas according to modules strings is the correct one, but now regarding the partition in module strings (width and height of strings), is there any rule that I should follow ?Thank you very much :)

Dear Andre, thank you for replying to my previous quenstion but unfortunqtely I have also another one. :) I have a problem when I try to simulate a large PV system with 2 axis tracking. I saw that there was a problem in the previous version and you suggested to create our 3D scene. So I create my 3D scene and when I simulate, error 9 appears i n my screen. However, when I choose "no shadings" then my simulation works perfectly. I have tried to change my PV system parameters as well as the pitch but still nothing.My version is the trial one of 6.11 do you think that has anything to do with it? Thank you in advance.

Hello, I am a new to PVsyst 6, I have just download the free trial version for my internship, but I have a problem with my meteo data.I have used the SoDA and I choose the Helioclim3 (monthly values) for the 2005 but I can not change it to the standard PVsyst file. They are monthly values and they do not include wind speed or Temperature, is that a problem? Which are the necessary input data for this form? Thank you in advance for your response.