AutoRob

Hello, in my understanding, I will get the most reasonable rear side irradiance when I simulate it as front, so for example with unlimited sheds changing 90° to -90° azimuth, while changing the IAM to normal glass. The simulated effective irradiance * bifaciality factor should be the correct effective rear side irradiance for the original simulation. Is there any way to include this simulated rear side irradiance in the original simulation? Shed transparent fraction and albedo influence the front too and the rear side shading and mismatch factors are only making the irradiance worse, while (at least in my case) the rear side irradiance i want to match is slightly better than the simulated one... Maybe it is possible via changing pitch or number of sheds, but i am not sure if this is reliable and if this will change something else. Also, I have another question: The thermal losses are dependent on the effective front side irradiance, this leads to unrealistic thermal gains in vertical simulations. For example, a south oriented plant has 1.1% loss, a vertical system at the same location has 1.1% gain. I dont think there is a way to fix that other than brute forcing the U value. Is that a bug, and if so, when is it planned to be fixed? Best regards Robin

Hey, I think there is something wrong with the Thin Objects Electrical Shading Factor in PVsyst 8... I made some simulations to compare PVsyst 7 with PVsyst 8.0.6 in slow and fast shading calculation. The scene is a fixed south oriented plant with huge power poles and overhead lines across it. For the weather, only december (in northern Germany) is considered. The results are as follows: Looks like the definition of the factor is inverted or something... BR