Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Michele, Thank you for your response. It is nice to know this is being given thought. Couldn't ask for more. Best regards.
  2. Hello, Any news about this? 2 decimals are more than enough. Just, please make it so the parameters inputs are 2 decimals as the results and that those 2 decimals are kept the same for losses that are directly calculated using those parameters (ex.: soiling loss). Also, recently I noticed that the mismatch loss keeps the input value only on the first run of that variant. If ran twice, it will sometime change (usually x-0.01%). Best regards
  3. Hello, @dtarin We usually don't use the internal tool to fit arrays on terrain but this could be an idea for a workaround: Instead of using trackers from the beginning, fill the areas with fixed tilt arrays of the same size of the trackers and use an azimuth that gives you the same shape of the trackers (SN axis -> 90 degrees azimuth for fixed tilt) and tilt equal to the max tilt of the trackers. After positioning them convert them to trackers with the internal tool and they will keep the SN slope too. Best regards
  4. Thank you for the prompt response. I perfectly understand your point about accuracy and agree. It's more about coherence and being able to show that we used the input values as requested. It would actually be fine if all losses and inputs were fixed at 2 decimals without other options as long as they were all compatible. Thank you in advance for your support and best regards.
  5. Hello, We are able to display the report using 1 to 3 decimal places but, in several places of the software, the input is limited to 1 or 2 decimals (soiling, aging, etc). Often we are requested to run simulations with input values calculated separately and, as they are often given with 3 or more decimals, it would be nice to be able to keep the same precision in the input and output. This is especially true for losses that just use the input value. These should not be rounded more than the report precision requires. Best regards
  6. Thank you for the prompt response. I understand that the effect is very low. The problem is the consistency of the rounding. It would be fine if it always rounded to 0% or as normally if >0.05 then 0.1, if<0.05 then 0 or also always to 0.1 Also I don't really see the need of rounding these numbers. Wouldn't be even easier to just keep them as they were input? Sorry for being pedantic but we were asked this by customers and we are not able to give them an answer. Best regards
  7. Hi, I was doing several simulations of the same project using GHI data measured on site on a monthly base and only changing the soiling setting and I noticed an inconsistency in the resulting loss. In some months the measured soiling loss was under 0.1% (ex.: 0.06) and without any visible reason the resulting loss becomes 0.1% or 0%. This doesn't even depend on the input number being over 0.05% or not. I had some months with 0.02% setting giving 0.1% loss in the diagram. I understand this is a very little difference but I have no explanation to give customers when asked for. The best solution would actually be to just use the setting number as it is without rounding, both in the settings report and in the loss diagram. Thanks in advance for your time and best regards. Michele
  8. Hi, You could also make an experiment in PVsyst: Using just a table with the correct size and tilt, place it facing backward as if it was the rear face of the module. Then run 2 simulations, one with the net and one without it and see the difference in shadings. It's still not real but could give a guide for your assumptions. Best regards
  9. Hi, Sorry for intruding in an ongoing thread. I would also consider changing the order of far shadings and Global incident in coll. plane effect. Physically, light is firstly blocked by mountains and other obstacles and then received by modules at their tilt that increases or decreases it compared to GHI. Also, far shadings should probably be excluded from the PR calculations because, in reality, the pyranometers installed on site will only get the irradiance left after far shadings are subtracted. In some cases this is not true, so maybe make it an option. Thanks in advance and best regards
  10. Hello, We had a problem with the Iso-shadings graph. Please see the image below. I would think this occurs when the line would have to go over 90 degrees that is the display limit for this graph, and instead of just disappearing or changing the display, it drops down to 0. On another note: please make possible to set defaults for all reports, maybe in advanced settings. Recently the output units started switching to GWh but for projects going on for some time, we would like to keep them at MWh units and so we have to change this back very time we output a report. This takes time because the report takes some time to update every time we change something and also makes it easier to make mistakes and output reports with different units. Best regards
  11. Hello, The email I sent wasn't about the report but about a strange behavior when changing project settings for orientations detecting. I understand that we don't pay for support but we pay the software and therefore any bug and its solution becomes your responsibility. Your answer didn't provide any constructive info so please, once more, advice on how to solve these problems because our work depends on it. Best regards
  12. Hi, We usually work on very large sites (100+MW on hilly terrain) and the shadings simulations improvements of the last years helped us a lot. Now, with 7.1, the shadings calculations for a 120MW project finished in around 40 minutes, that is great, BUT then just to output the report, it took more than 2 hours. It used to take maybe 10 minutes in 6.88 and we already thought it was slow, seen that it just outputs text and some simple graphs and one small image of the 3D scene (that could be pre-rendered because we set the report view in the 3D scene editor). Other points related to the new report: 1) including your big logo in every page increases the file size of the output without adding anything to it. 2) please let us set defaults for all projects, or at least for each project, about what pages we want to include or how many decimals to use. 3) please make it so the number of decimals for the values in the report are all the same. Now, also if we set 3 decimals, for example, the transposition factor effect on the irradiation is reported with 1 decimal anyway. On a different subject: I sent you an email directly to support email because the support messaging on the website doesn't let me attach other than images and I needed to send you a project file that acts strangely. I didn't get any response for over a week and any post on this forum seems to be forgotten. Other users usually reply with helpful info but some times we would need a more official answer and/or some info that only PVsyst people can provide. Please try and improve not only the software but the support system we pay for every year. Best regards
  13. Hello, Please see the figures below: Around the 10 years zone, there is a sudden change in the curve and also the values for the mismatch due to ageing. After that, the curve goes back to mostly linear like before the 10 years zone. We found this behavior in several cases and we don't understand why it's so. We would expect the mismatch to keep growing more and more, maybe fluctuating around a more exponential curve because of the randomness of the calculations. Can we have an explanation of this happening? Best regards Michele
  14. Hi, In the new version 7 detailed losses/AC ohmic losses definition part, the software takes as STC Pac the DC nominal power instead of the AC one. Because of this it keeps giving an error saying that the transformer power is lower than the Inverter global output. Best regards
  15. I just installed the new version 7 hoping that several requests of the past would be implemented but with no luck. These are all about the behavior of the report. 1)In page 1 or 2, where it shows the IAM user defined table, the "IAM user defined" string is overlapped on itself and can't be read. 2)For big sites it takes minutes to just open the report. I guess this is related to the 3D scene being rendered every time. Wouldn't be easier to render the image when we save the image for the report and use that image as it is in the report? 3)Please give us the possibility of setting defaults for what pages we want in report and what graphs in those pages. Now we have to change them every time we re open the report. Hoping these get some attention, Best regards
  • Create New...