tecnun

Yes Sylvain it is now solved Thank you!

Hello Team, Module layout from imported scenes are not yet solved. You have to limit spaces between modules and anyway sometimes it doesn not interprete strings. We it does, you cannot fill them automatically, it looks like they are not in order. For instance, you fill in 2 rows and horizontally and it does not understand this "order" as it fills it randomly Could you check this out? BR Jose

Hello Team, When you create a tree with the quick tool, and later on you want to modify it, it appears like a parallepiped. Could you please check this out? Thanks in advance BR Jose

Thank you André, i was a little bit wrong!. Anyway...in the new tool it exists 2 results, one direct (voltage mismath between strings) and at the end it says "wires and results" and then it says another mismatch result, which is different to the first i mention, what this result stand for? should we sum or additionate both? Thanks in advance! Best R.

Hello again, You guys have just developped a very atractive tool to calculate mismatch at a glance it looks impressive, but i need to understand it in order to use it correctly. I have a couple of questions: We have in the old tool mismatch in Current & Voltage, what kind of mismatch does this tool calculate? In label 2 it shows voltage mismatch, which is the same as the old tool right? In the last label it appears 2 more results: Average power loss...is this only ohmic loss?? and the other mismatch itself...is this only mismatch among strings? all this detailed study refers to STRING mismatch right? So, summing up, we have 3 mismatches, 2 of them are calculated in the old tool and one with the new (strings). The new tool also gives academic examples of explanation of phenomenom of mismtach and calculates voltage mismatch (but this is redundant as the old tool also calculates it). Am i right? am i missing something for taking advantage of these tools? Many thanx Best R Jose

I agree with you, i m pretty sure that if we measure string by string after LID (for instance) the dispersion must be much higher. Anyway what i would like to recheck is that the conversion from RMS to Gaussian (or square) distribution and to the electrical mismatch is reliable and contrastable,i m not doubtful about your algorithms but need to be sure positive for future calculations as my job depends of this accuracy. Thanks in advance BR Jose

Hello Team, How you usually calculate mismatch? (i mean the old tool not the new by the moment) For instance, i got the flash report of a current installation of 81 kWp over a rooftop. We didnt put in order the fieleds neither in current nor in voltage. So i did this: 1) I calculate RMS error of currents 2) I calculate RMS error of voltages In both cases this RMS = 0,3% aprox. I set the values and, as this percentage is so low the gaussian distribution says there is 0,1% of mismatch, so almost neglective What am i doing badly? Is it possible that flash reports are "magically" almost perfect? Thanks in advance BR Jose

Hello Sylvain, This bug is not yet solved. When you minimize a window it shows the precedent and the later cannot be closed in order to work in your desktop. Is it possible to do it? or unless go to previous versions where when you minimize a windows every window is minimized Thanks in advance BR Jose

Thanks Sylvain, I rechecked before sending anything: The system is working now, i just had to fix some "tricks" like allowing no space between modules in module layout so it recognizes every module. It keeps on requiring some improvements i say a good one: when you fill the strings automatically and for instance you say fill in with horizontally it really doesnt do it maybe bcs the number of module in the fields are not sequenced spacially, i mean it is filled by number not by situation in layout. Anyway good effort and congratulations for your continuous improvents BR Jose

Hello, Partition in module chains and layout scenarios for calculate shadings taking into account landscape&portrait config, bypass diodes "help" etc...is not working for imported scenes from sketchup or similar. They simply cannot work as each module represent one field. I ve tried to not separate them in sketchup but didnt work either. Are you planning to supply something to solve this issue? Thanks in advance Jose (Tecnun)

Hello Jean-Marie, I cannot attach it as it weighs 900 kB but the problem could be solved. As you said Latitud was wrong, it came in "." and in Chile we use "," so the latitud was 702.756. I just removed the last "6" and it turned to 70.275, so manually you do that trick and it goes perfect afterwords. Thnx BR

Hello Jmfeppon, I m attaching the file,just one example Thanx BR Tecnun S1_ExplSolar_2013.rar

Hello, I ve tried to import Meteo data from Explorador Solar now that it is available but it makes it badly bcs of a question of time shift in clear days (355 minutes!) Could you guys check it? BR Jose

Hello, I ve just updated to 6.64 and i ve realized that a simulation that i made yesterday in my 3 MW tracking PV system has now lasted 4 times longer today. Besides, i ve tried to change the string configuration in the model layout and now it is not possible, it puts modules only in 3-4 strings. Could you guys please check out this? Thanx in advance BR

Thanks a lot Sylvain Best Regards

Hello Dauslend, How do you do it? I really dont know how to make 25 simulations in batch mode, as the csv file only "write" SIM_1 so when i simulate it calculates only one year... Thanks in advance my best regards Tecnun

Yes i refreshed my memory ;) it was not that you could minimize any regardless of the hierarchy but ALL at the same time... BR

Hello Sylvain, I ll be more specific in my explanation...is not closing is MINIMIZING so you can work in your desktop. I m very sure you could minimize everything in past versions, i could remember they all minimized at the same time once you click the "-" button, and you then you have your desktop full and clean to work on other things, but now only the last window minimizes Best R. Jose

Hello Team, I cannot close more than the last window, while in past versions you could close any regardless of the hierarchy, could you check it? Thanks in advance BR Jose

Thank you Sylvain, I ve tested importing from Sketchup without spaces and it keeps on considering them as individual PV fields. Anyway i could calculate shadows in module layout by increasing the area in a few cms. The problem is that now the electrical losses are fewer than the same scenario with 1 PV field!! I have separated modules by 2 cms and the result is the same (??). Another new question that comes to my mind is whether the results disabling interpenetration check are better than without doing it (in other word what creates more inconsistences). Thanks, BR

Dear Sylvain & Team, Dont know if the questions were clear, I m going right to the main point: When you have as many PV FIELDS as modules (ONE module correspond to ONE PV field)...the shadows losses calculation takes into account bypass diodes action (eg setting the difference whether the modules are in landscape or portrait) ... the fact is that MODULE LAYOUT mode is disabled in this case or I dont know how to use it. Thanks in advance Tecnun

Hello Team, We used to simulate shading scenes from module layouts for better accuracy. But in this new 6.61 version I am getting the scenes imported from DAE or 3DS and now Module layout doesnt work. Why? In this case each PV area is just 1 module. Anyhow in our models there are a lot of complex shading objects as there are complex roofs and sometimes of more than 1000 modules so even with the fastest way the simulation last eternally. I dont know if i am using what you guys called graphic accelerator and anyway eg my computer has got only 2Gb RAM. What can i do? Another lagging problem coming from this imported 3D scenes is that eg if we use Google Sketchup the modules are divided in PV planes and paralepiped boxes underneath so PVsyst "sais" that these objects are too close to the pv planes and we have to separate them manually taking a lot of time to the system to calculate the new distances scenario. Do we have to select module plane and "box" (cells and housing) together as pv generator to save this lagging process? A lot of questions hopefully you find a solution for taking advantage of all these drawing potential of 6.61 v. Anyway in some weeks i am buying a 16 Gb RAM laptop dont know if that will help.... Best Regards Jose

Thats exactly what it happened, thanks a lot. 2 more things i detected: 1) Letters are ilegible in "no rendered" mode 2) Could you ease object displacement in "no render mode"? the "sweet point" is difficult to get it (i think it is in the center of the rectangle) unlike in "rendered mode" which the whole rectangle flashes in yellow and is much more easier to drag objects. BR and anyway congratulations for all these big improvements Jose

Ok Sylvain, I know what it is happening: Strangely the same SKETCHUP model (METERS) is transformated in DAE in INCHES, so in the dialog block when you set it in the shading scene you must say it is in INCHES and there is no problem. (the same original SKETCHUP model when transformated in 3DS the units are not changed. Another thing is that in DAE when the program detects there could be objects that seem to be modules you must click them like in 3DS, but eg when they named YINKO in the dialog block they appear like "object" but they are modules (it appears a blue square symbol) and the program treat them all right like modules. I don t know if I have expressed well. BR Jose M

Hello again, Sorry i didnt doublecheck. 1) DAE definitely dont work as it appears unscaled (really big) and the PVfield cannot be spotted and changed 2) 3DS works. In MY case big drawings dont work bcs i estime my graphic card is not sufficient, but for smaller it works properly 3) I ve discovered how you drag objects, if someone is reading me maybe it is useful: You have to position the pointer in the middle of the square it will flash out in yellow. BR, Jose