ShivamPandey

How can I know if the horizon is correct in the pvsyst report or in the project?

PVcase imported trackers do not have pitch defined when going in the modify object. Does it impact backtracking? I have heard from a few industry people that it does not do the backtracking as it does not have the pitch defined (or not an array of the trackers) and all the trackers are ungrouped and are not an array of trackers Also if I ungroup an array of trackers which was created in PVsyst near shading, does this affect the backtracking? See the below snip for reference Pvcase export An array of trackers was created in Pvsyst and then ungrouped

Just for my understanding, is it possible to have different albedo for the far and bifacial model or it should be the same if we have albedo values available? Project setting albedo is used for simulation even if modules are mono-facial.

Why Albedo from the project setting is not copied to the variant bifacial model, we always have to enter values two times. If we need to edit a variant albedo, we can do it manually later during variant design. What is the use of project setting albedo?

I ran into the same problem. Solaredge tool itself allows for more than 11 optimizers per string. You can confirm with the optimizer datasheet. For 490W modules, we can connect up to 12020W per string if each unit has at least two strings. Also, PVsyst does not allow connecting an odd number of modules per string. (EX- 19 modules per string, last module with single module per optimizer) Please suggest

When PVcase exported PVC file imported into PVsyst, the tracker has more number of modules than it should be (87 modules per tracker instead of 84 modules ). I know this is due to the tracker motor gap and foundation gap for terrain following trackers (Multiple bays of 7 and 8 modules with foundation gap). I tried to divide all the gaps into module spacing to achieve the tracker length and changed the number of modules per tracker to actual numbers. See spreadsheet screen shot. In the process, I modified the rectangle’s length to equal the number of modules per string times the module width. However, this adjustment reverts to the original incorrect lengths when applied to trackers with different string configurations (2-string or single-string), showing 87 modules for a 3-string tracker instead of the correct 84. As a workaround, I’ve manually selected all similar trackers and altered the module numbers using the CTRL+G command. Question is- 1. Is this the correct method? If not, do we have other methods for simulations of terrain-following trackers with multiple bays? 2. Does this affect the thermal losses as modules have larger spacing compared to actual spacing (1 inch for reference)

Imported ground image is coming in the report even after decreasing the opacity to zero in near shading. It only does not show in the report for the first time. When opened next time report has image included.

Thank you, currently doing the same.

Hi Team I have edited the advanced parameters in the past for one of the clients but forgot to make it default parameters for other simulations. How much this might have affected the overall production estimation? Thanks in advance.

Can we have the option to input or limit AC ohmic losses and MV losses to a certain percentage? Example- In below attached snip, we always try to limit the Auxiliaries to 0.15% and AC ohmic and MV transfo losses to 1% for every project or varient. We have to run multiple simulations while changing the values in Detailed losses section.

Shared via email

I am doing a project where I tried to do the simulations with the power-sharing to distribute power equally among the MPPT but I am getting below error "The sum of power shares is larger than 100%". I have attached the images for your reference. First snip shows the list of sub-arrays and system equipment. Below snip is after the power-sharing defined No error in the system after power sharing is done. I can simulate the system without any error But when I go back to the project page I get the error "The sum of power shares is larger than 100%" Please see the below snip. Now, if I go to power-sharing again percentage is changed for each MPPT, and Pnom ratio is uneven instead of equal or near to equal. Now If I uncheck and check, power sharing works fine but sharing is not retained after simualtions. As of now, I have done the simulations with partial sharing but can you please suggest a solution? I can provide more info if needed.

What is the use of the client on the project page?

Can we create a template for every client if we are working for multiple client? Template will have name, logo, and all other information like pages required other info on the report. This will help us not to write the same thing multiple times.