Nicolas T

Hello, I’m doing a simulation using hourly measured GHI in input and I wonder what separation model is used to calculate the DHI. I use to think it is the Erbs model, as it’s indicated in the help (last line) : But this info is for the version 6 and my simulation report (v7) mentions meteonorm, so I’m confused. Does anyone know what model is used for the separation please ? Have a nice day, Nicolas

Just in case if anyone has the same problem, it is possible to change the resistivity value in the advanced parameters.

Hello, I have some interrogations about the wire temperature considered in the AC loss calculations. From the resistivity value we assume that the temperature considered is around 50°C, can you confirm this? And is there a way to modify this temperature? I checked the advanced parameters but didn't find anything relevant. Have a nice day, Nicolas

Ok I'll try that if I have the problem again. Thanks for your answers !

Hello everyone, Recently I had an issue using a PVC scene from PVCase. The scene seems correct in PVCase but in PVsyst some tables are confused or too close. Is this something common and does it exist a solution to this problem ? I was able to run the simulation by using the tool “disable field interpenetration check”. I was wondering if it’s risky to do it that way so I moved manually the tables (it’s not very convenient because the faulty tables are not presented all at the same time so it must be done one by one). The results between the 2 methods are pretty even for this project : Tool Manually Specific production 1104 kWh/kWp 1108 kWh/kWp Near shading losses -3.62% -3.60% Electrical shading losses -1.13% -0.81% Generally would you recommend using the tool ? Regards, Nicolas

Thank you !

Hello, I looked at information on the calculations done by PVsyst for trackers, it would be nice if someone could confirm if what I understood is correct or not : For the IAM losses and the transposition of the irradiance PVsyst uses the average orientation of the scene The tracking angle is calculated based on a table/pitch ratio, the same one is applied to all the trackers of a scene The orientation differences created by the topography are taken into account for the calculation of the shading losses (up to 8 orientations ?). Is it fair to say that the topography is considered for the shading calculation ? For the calculation of the bifacial gain PVsyst considers that the scene is flat Thank you in advance, Regards

Hello, I just sent you the project. I did some tests and it looks like the problem comes from the thin objects, when I delete them the loss is the same on both versions.

Hello everyone, I've been running a simulation on the version 7.2.19 and the 7.3.1, and the electrical shading losses are different : 7.2.19 : -3.40% 7.3.1 : -4.99% The variant is exactly the same. I looked at the shading factor tables, they are equal. Does anyone know why I have such a big difference ? Thank you very much Nicolas

Ok thank you very much !

Hello everyone, I've been running simulations with multi orientations, and I have some interrogations. My understanding is that for FT planes Pvsyst can handle up to 8 different orientations. It calculates a shading table and the shading losses for each orientation. The shading losses that appear in the report and the hourly file are average values for the field. Is that it ? And is it possible to get the shading losses for each orientation by running the entire system at once instead running a simulation per orientation ? Thanks in advance Nicolas