André Mermoud

As i said, this is not yet implemented, but on our roadmap.

The basic irradiation used for the PR evaluation is GlobInc, not GlobHor. I.e. the global incident on the collector plane. This is the irradiance value after the transposition. For example, in your first system: GlobInc = GlobHor * (1 + Global in collector coefficient) = 1994 kWh/m2 * 118.2 % = 2357 kWh/m2 This GlobInc value is also available on the monthly table.

First of all: the simulation with 2 different kinds of orientation (tracking and fixed planes) will be possible with the version 8, to be released within some few months. Now for getting a merged performance ratio betweem 2 different simulations, you should come back to the PR basic definition (cf Help "Project design > Results > Performance Ratio"): PR = E_Grid / (GlobInc * PnomPV) You shoud add each components from both projects: PR (glob) = (E_Grid1 + E_Grid2) / (GlobInc1 * PNomPV1 + GlobInc2 * PNomPV2).

In your Subarrays definitions, you have defined 3 MPPT in each sub-array. If so, you should indeed define at least 3 strings in each subarray. Now in your case you have one string per Subarray, so that should define one MPPT input in each subarray.

Yes of course, this is what I explained above.

The tracking angle optimization doesn't work with diffuse thresholds. At each time step, the simulation evaluates the optimal tracking angle on the basis of the transposition model: the angle is adjusted in order to get the best transposition result GlobInc, considering the Beam and Diffuse components.

In the "System" dialog presizing tool, the specified area is the modules area (the sum of all modules), not the ground occupation.

PVsyst applies the default values (for getting -3% relative efficiency @200W/m2) to the PV modules of the internal database for which the Rserie is not defined. Now for the PAN files defined by the users, this doesn't make sense: the user should be able to define its own Resistance values. Therefore PVsyst doesn't modify these values anymore, except when these are not compatible with the one-diode model (i.e. Rserie > RsMax).

Sorry, this is an error in the translation tool. The first sentence should be read as "The PV array operating voltage (XX V) is over the required voltage for direct charging (YY V)" This will be corrected in a next version.

The SolarEdge architecture obeys very strict rules, established by SolarEdge. PVsyst strictly applies these rules. These rules namely define the compatibility conditions between the optimizer and the inverter models, as well as some maximum sizing and operating limits. For each association Optimizer - Inverter, there are limits, namely on the number of otimizers in series and the Maximum power. For this association, the Minimum number of optimizers is specified as 14. I don't lknow why. Please ask SolarEdge people.

Since V 7.4.6, the Rshunt and Rserie are normally kept as read on the file. However PVsyst ensures that the one-diode model can be applied. Namely, if the RSerie is greater than RSerieMax (the max. value for wich the model can be established), the RSerie is restricted to RSerieMax. If desired, you can modify these values in the dialog (for example, increasing RShunt will allow a higher Rserie).

I don't see what you mean. I have just tried with the version 7.4.6 and this works quite well. Please send us the PAN file which is not correctly read (to support@pvsyst.com) NB: The Rshunt may indeed be modified, as it is rounded to something like 50 or 100 ohm, I don't remember. This is not significant in the model.

The BTR file is meant for use within PVsyst. It is not meant for external use. We don't provide support for it. These variables are internal to the model. For defining batteries in PVsyst, you should use the dialog within PVsyst.

Sorry, this is not possible in PVsyst. You cannot specify an heterogeneous string this is a simulation.

This "Euro efficiency" weighted average was proposed by the "Joint Research Center" (center of the European Communities) in the years 1990. These weighting parameters were evaluated from the weather data of their location (Ispra, north of Italy). Another weithing is proposed by the US (CEC), based on the californian climate. It doesn't make sense to redefine these weighting parameters, as this is a "standard" distribution which defines the behaviour of many inverters.