Linda Thoren

The low light performance and temperature coefficient is defined in the individual .PAN files. The thermal parameters are then set for the full system to evaluate the temperature and the thermal losses in each sub-array. Thus if you are mixing panels in the same inverter (though in different sub-arrays), the different temperature coefficient of the different modules are well taken into account. In the loss diagram you will see the results for the full system. You find more information on the subject in the following PVsyst help pages: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/physical-models-used/pv-module-standard-one-diode-model/index.html?h=pv+module+standard+one+diode+model https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/array-and-system-losses/array-thermal-losses/index.html

Hello, As you indicate, in PVsyst you will first find the irradiance loss (linear shadings) and then the additional electrical shadings. Note that, in the loss diagram, each loss is defined as percentage of the previous energy quantity. Therefore the percent values are not additive.

Hello, With lower PV production due to ageing modules, it seems reasonable to see less overload losses.

You define the year in the batch parameter csv file. As in the video tutorial un minute 7. Now indeed it seems like you are not varying any of the parameters and simulate the same project 25 times.

Hi, It seams like you have set all the simulations for year 1. In the 15th column "Simulation Year"

Hi, You find information of how to define the ageing in the following tutorial: The Batch mode is described in the following tutorial:

Hello, When using the independent MPPT inputs feature, it is very important to have a multiple between the number of strings and MPPTs in each sub-array, or PVsyst can not equally distribute the strings over the MPPTs and you risk incorrect evaluation of the inverter losses over nominal inverter power. The MPPT and Power sharing feature is fully described in the following youtube tutorial:

Hello, This depends on your system layout. If the majority of the shadings are regular mutual shadings, you can leave the fraction for electrical effect to 100%. If you have several shading objects in the scene causing irregular shadings, you might need to adapt this value. This is furthered discussed in our help: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/shadings/electrical-shadings-module-strings/index.html#module-layout-reference Kind regards

The last generated Monte Carlo values is for year 30. You can still simulate a degradation beyond this, though after 30 it is assumed to be a linear trend.

In the coming PVsyst version 8.1, several input parameters can be defined as hourly values via a .csv file. This will allow snow coverage (in %) to be specified on an hourly basis if desired. However, we are not currently implementing more advanced snow-coverage models, though this is on our roadmap for a future version.

Hello, If you for instance have self-consumption or storage, System production production is not necessarily the same as E_grid. What version of PVsyst are you using? There may be differences due to rounding of results when saving files. However, these differences are necessarily negligible. If they are not, there may indeed be a problem and feel free to export your project as a zip file and send us an email to support@pvsyst.com

Hi, The Monte Carlo values are currently generated for up to 30 years. For simulations extending beyond 30 years, a linear trend based on the last two data points is applied. Thank you for your feedback. I’ve noted the interest in generating Monte Carlo values over a longer horizon and potentially this can be developed for a future version.

Hello, 1. In version 8.0.19 we have been improving the orientation grouping function. Which version are you using? What tolerance is set in the project settings? 2. The issue could from the fact that you can define multiple gaps for your tracker in PVcase, motor gap, joint gap, horizontal gap between modules and vertical gap between modules (though normally this would lead to the opposite issue, that more modules are placed in the 3D scene than in the system definition). PVsyst we handle only horizontal gap between modules and vertical gaps between modules, so the PVC file doesn’t contain the other information. The PVC file only contains the total length/width of the trackers and the horizontal/vertical gaps between modules. Did you check the "Terrain following trackers" checkbox in the "Frame creation" tab in PVcase? This setting should break the PVcase trackers into multiple smaller trackers for PVsyst (according to the defined gaps), placing the modules at the correct location. In this case, PVsyst will divide the tracker where the motor gap is. I also notice that 163 tables are not defined by modules, potentially the mismatch comes from these tables. Kind regards

Indeed this is a limitation we still have. The electrical shadings in general in PVsyst are further explained in the following video:

Hello, At the moment, small shades at the center of pv modules are not treated and do not create electrical shadings. This is something we hope to improve in a future version. Kind regards.