Hung MAI

Hello, When working with a normal ground-based project, in "Weather data tables and graphs" , in both "Graph" and "Tables" tab, when I try to check for the monthly values of GHI and GTI, very often I see both values are the same, which is weird. Also PVsyst asks me for confirmation of the Plane Orientation, which I have already defined in System. Only when I try to see the value in Hourly, then it displays correctly , and then go back to the monthly values in both "Graph" and "Tables" tab, they will be display correctly. Steps: 1. Try to see monthly data, PVsyst ask for plane orientation 2. Monthly GTI = GHI ?? 3. Same when seeing in Table 4. Only when check the data in hourly mode, it seems to "fix" the bug 5. GTI and GHI in Graph and Table now correctly displayed

Hello PVsyst team, In PVsyst version 8.0.4, I was able to run this simulation where there are 5 different orientations (hence 5 sub-array in Systems), in which one orientation only include 1 big array of 26x19 modules. But since version 8.0.5, I have this error when opening the above variant. I tried to manually defined the pitch & Number of Sheds in the bifacial model, pitch 26m and different sheds number 1/2/500, but the errors is still there. I don't know how to solve this issue, maybe it is a bug since ver 8.0.4 can run it (although I understand the Diffuse Ground Factor will be 0 since the pitch is recognized as 0 by PVsyst in the bifacial model window, meaning it is less accurate?). But then the new function of defining the pitch&shed should have worked to correct this? Also in the 3D scene & Orientation windows, there is no error or warning at all. Can you help me with this? Thanks a lot!

Hello PVsyst! I have a vertical bifacial East-West system, and I want to make sure that the irradiance received from the East-side should be the same whether I use east-front facing or west-front facing config. Same for West-side. Therefore, I made 2 simulations with the above 2 config, then compare just the Ressource losses (top part of the Loss Diagram). The results are attached as images. I don't think the horizon loss and soiling loss is integrated in the backside losses, hence I excluded these 2 losses from the front-side. The structure shading loss BackShd is also excluded for the back-side, in hope of a fair comparison. For the result, I expect the "Global Irradiance on front side (no soiling, no horizon shading)" of one configuration (East/West) to be more or less similar with the "Global Irradiance on rear side (no soiling, no structure shading)" of the other config (West/East). I highlight the 2 couples values in green and orange. West front-facing result: East front-facing result: Only the green pair seems to be similar (1.1% difference), the orange pair is 4.5% difference. This is already much better than some previous version of PVsyst, but I still want to know if my expectation is logical and if yes, what are the reason for this difference (the orange pair). Thank you!