jforbess

Thank you so much for posting your own answer! Here I am using it 6 years later.

I just downloaded a long term time series file from Vaisala, and when I try to use the 3Tier/Vaisala known format, PVsyst reports an unknown tag in the first line. However I was able to use 6.7.9 to import them as a known format, so it is apparently a bug in 6.8.3.

It turns out the issue was due to an error in the meteo file. An ambient temperature for 1 hour of 90C.

I just created a new project with a very standard configuration, though I guess the PAN and OND files are new. Otherwise, fixed tilt, one sub-array, nothing special. The PDF report shows a negative PR in February, and doesn't report the E_Grid. It also has a glitch on the waterfall chart. However, the data is reasonably normal in the 8760. Apparently I can't attach a pdf file here? Then, when I save the variant after viewing the report, PVsyst hangs very hard. I have used 6.7.8 for a few weeks with no problem until today.

I have finally started taking advantage of zones, which can be very powerful, but was stumped when I wanted to define single-axis-trackers in a zone. Is that possible? (I am using 6.6.6 at the moment.)

I also have this problem. I would like to misalign my tilted tracker so that each row is more northern to the east, and it seems incorrect that the way to accomplish this is with a negative pitch, and a positive misalign value.

Hello, I just updated from 6.53 to 6.60, and loaded a new project, copying a variant from a previous project from 6.53 or perhaps 6.48. I noticed that the thermal loss parameters did not transfer (I used 25 / 1.2). I corrected that and ran it. I verified that the non-standard 25 / 1.2 parameters were included in the simulation, and showed in the report. Then I ran a batch file with varying meteo files, and varying Module Quality Loss factors. I noticed that the thermal loss factors were reset to 20 / 0 for all of the batch. This is a pretty big bug for those of us who use batch files and will require me to use 6.53.

When I try to open a BatchResults.csv file straight into excel, it only shows: PVsyst simulations Batch mode;; Simulation parameters and results; File Created on 02/02/16 18:08;; ;; Project ;;;SiteName;; Variants based on;;VC0;Base case;; ;; Only the lines beginning by "SIM_" will be executed;; And then it stops. I think it is because there is a " at the beginning of the line. When I delete the "Only ... line in a text editor, I can open the file in excel with no problem. It would be great if this line could be changed so that I don't have to open every results file in a text editor before I open it in excel.

I was running batch mode and examining the reports in saved Calculations, I discovered that though the report lists 0.8% as availability input, it showed 0.0% availability in the loss waterfall for all runs except the first run. I observed this in 6.37, 6.39 and 6.41. (I don't have 6.38 and 6.40 installed.)

I just updated to 6.41 and have found that the issue has changed. I run multiple meteo files, and run each meteo file with a change of a parameter. Now when I run multiple meteo files in batch, the first run of a meteo file uses the correct meteo file, but the following runs use the first year I specified. Ident Meteo data Mod. quality Simul Error GlobHor T_Amb GlobInc FTransp E_Grid PR *.MET file loss Comment kWh/m² °C kWh/m² kWh [%] >>SIM_1998_01 SiteName_1998.MET 0.0 Base Case 1998 Year 1 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 177748415 0.8147 SIM_1998_10 SiteName_1998.MET 4.4 Base Case 1998 Year 10 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 171547707 0.7863 SIM_1998_20 SiteName_1998.MET 9.0 Base Case 1998 Year 20 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 164347079 0.7533 >>SIM_1999_01 SiteName_1999.MET 0.0 Base Case 1999 Year 1 1568 14.51 1994 1.272 184156118 0.8245 SIM_1999_10 SiteName_1999.MET 4.4 Base Case 1999 Year 10 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 171547707 0.7863 SIM_1999_20 SiteName_1999.MET 9.0 Base Case 1999 Year 20 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 164347079 0.7533 >>SIM_2000_01 SiteName_2000.MET 0.0 Base Case 2000 Year 1 1621 13.65 2104 1.298 194100553 0.8235 SIM_2000_10 SiteName_2000.MET 4.4 Base Case 2000 Year 10 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 171547707 0.7863 SIM_2000_20 SiteName_2000.MET 9.0 Base Case 2000 Year 20 1545 15.25 1948 1.261 164347079 0.7533

Nevermind, I see my mistake. The injection port limitation needs to be selected, rather than inverter limitation. (I would suggest making the injection port the default, but at least now the feature is there.) Thanks.

I don't find the implementation in 6.39 helpful, because I would expect the limitation at the grid level to take into account any AC ohmic losses or transformer losses, such that if the output of my inverter is 2.2 MW, with STC AC losses of 0.5% and peak transformer losses at 1.0%, resulting in a peak output of 2.167 at the grid, I would like that output limited to 2.0MW. Currently the inverter is limited, with AC and transformer losses included after the limitation, but plants are often operated with the limitation including consideration of the AC and transformer losses.

I was able to get PVsyst 6.11(?) or so running in OSX (10.6, I think) and Wine, but I was not able to upgrade to the next version, and PVsyst was unable/unwilling to help me, so I continued running that version of PVsyst until I gave in and installed Parallels and Windows on my Mac, about nine months later. I don't know if the issue was the upgrading or the newer version.

I also have had this problem, and welcome it getting resolved ASAP. Thanks!

Hello, Recently at IEEE PVSC, it became clear that the academic world is trying to improve the ability to model performance including a varying spectral component. First Solar provided guidance to do this a few years ago, and now their best practice recommendation includes a monthly spectral adjustment that currently requires a confusing adjustment of the monthly soiling and MQF losses to include. 1) Can an additional set of monthly inputs for spectral adjustment be added (needs to allow either a gain or a loss) for a more straightfoward documentation of the adjustments made in PVsyst? 2) I suspect the academic world is still working out the best way to model spectrum changes based on precipitable water or temperature and humidity, but it would be a great addition to PVsyst when there is some consistency. Are the SMARTS and CREST models too complicated to include in PVsyst?