JStief

Hello - We have a simulation with imported topography. To try and minimize the transposition averaging error we created a second variant that groups the tracker tables into two separate orientations, one from 8.7 deg to 1.4 deg axis tilt, and one from 1.3 deg to -6.1 deg axis tilt. Two orientations were made and each has its own subarray. The final energy result of the variant with two orientations seems unaccountably low compared to the original. The right waterfall is the original, single orientation model. The one on the left is the new, two orientation version described above. I do not understand why the Effective irradiance on collectors to Array nominal energy changed by a much greater percentage (~3.5%) than the corresponding Effective irradiation values (0.4%). The 9 and 57 inverter groupings belong to Orientation 2 while the 2 and 26 inverter groups belong to Orientation 1. I initially noticed an error in how the strings were split between inverters in the sub-arrays but even after correcting this the above behavior persisted. Thank you

The file is now there once following these steps:

Hello - Where is this excel file stored or where can it be downloaded? Thank you "To help users who are new to command line interface but wants to try PVsystCLI, an small assistant is provided under the form of an excel document: examples\PVsystCLICmdGenerator.xlsx"

The simulation was already being run using the "All trackers" option in the "Trackers diffuse shading definition" selection window. However, the trackers all still appeared blue in color. I changed to "Central tracker" and orange/green shading become visible. I ran the model (still using the central tracker option) and the results were what was expected, extremely close to the version 7 PVsyst result. I cloned the variant, changed the trackers diffuse shading definition back to All. Reran the model, and near shading is back to zero again. For now I can simply use the central tracker option, but wanted to note this unexpected behavior.

Hello - For the simulation (bifacial, single axis tracker, utility scale, Southwest USA) in question previously in the latest version 7 release I was getting ~2% for "Near Shadings: irradiance loss" in the waterfall due to ShdDLss (diffuse) and ShdALss (albedo). In version 8 I am getting 0% for the exact same variant. Is this an error? The annual energy result is also off by a commensurate amount. In version 7 I had been using a representative block for the shading scene (far fewer modules than the actual project, no actual topography). In version 8 this created a warning due to the number of modules being so many fewer than the System window indicated, so I created another variant with additional trackers to see if that was the issue. However, I am still getting zero ShdLoss. Backtracking is on, so zero beam shading is expected, but I would expect to see some diffuse and albedo shading. Screenshot of the version 8 near shading window is attached. Thank you

I now understand what dtarin was saying. Set Phi min and Phi max (in batch mode) as the same value in order to model a "tracker" that is fixed in place. That's exactly what I'm wanting to do. It also won't require rebuilding the shading scene. Thank you both. I was still getting the weird issue with not getting the 8760s when running in batch mode. However, upon importing the variant to a new Project file it is working so that is resolved as well.

@dtarin How can phi be changed in the batch file? Besides the "Plane tilt" and "Plane azimuth" in the Plane Orientation tab I also see what is shown in the image attached. However, this causes the pitch to be changed for each SIM which is not what is desired in this case.

Ah, thank you. Perhaps I should share my intended goal. I am trying to follow the below procedure. However, it is difficult since a "tracker" Near Shading scene cannot be changed to a "fixed tilt" so I have to re-create it, it seems. Similarly, while a tracker rotates about it's center point, a fixed tilt is modeled in PVsyst from its edge and will only permit me to swing it around from 0 degrees to 90. Do you have any advice for the most efficient way to follow these steps?

Thank you for the response. However, my issue is that I can sometimes get the .csv 8760s to be created but under the specific conditions of only having the "Plane tilt", "Plane azimuth", and "Height above ground" as the batch parameter variables they are not generated.

Hello - I am attempting to compare different fixed tilt angles using a batch run. For some reason PVsyst does not create an 8760 .CSV file for each SIM when I am only using "Plane tilt", "Plane azimuth", and "Height above ground" as the variables. The values are varied over a span of 121 different SIMs but I have also tried running with just 3 to see if the quantity was an issue. I also tried creating a new project and importing the variant I had been using. To troubleshoot further I added "Module Quality Loss" to the BatchParams file variables. When using the same module quality loss value for all SIMS the .csv files were not created. However, once I varied the values for the module quality loss, I DID get the expected .csv files for each SIM. Varying the originally mentioned three variables should be adequate to change the simulations' results so I wonder if PVsyst is mistakenly not outputting a .csv for each SIM like it should be? Or am I missing something perhaps? Thank you very much.