Brian S

When I create a a tracking layout in the shading scene construction I set the number of modules per tracker. In this instance, I had a mixture of 25 module trackers and 50 module trackers. I created the trackers by defining the sizes 'by modules' rather than by 'by sensitive areas'. After closing the shading scene all was correct and I ran the simulation just fine. Opening it a few days later my shading scene was incorrect as the shading area was far lower than that specified in the model. I opened the shading scene to find that all my tracker sizes had halved. The 50 module trackers had reduced to 25 modules and the 25 module trackers to 12 modules. When I opened the table modifier the size definitions were specified as 'by sensitive areas'. This is not how I built the model and I didn't specify any of my modules by sensitive areas. Has this happened to anyone else? Thanks

Thanks for the reply. I have configured it correctly, and have modelled bifacial modules several times before without issue. I think I have solved the issue though. My tables were inserted by auto-filling my table zone. I edited a couple of the tables manually after this to reduce the size of the tables. When I checked the details of the tables that I hadn't changed the settings had shifted in the size definitions from 'by modules' to 'by sensitive areas'. I changed the setting manually back to 'by modules' and had to adjust the number of modules per table again as they seemed to default to a number that I hadn't specified. That seemed to fix the issue. Luckily my system is reasonably small (2MWp) as anything much bigger would have taken a long time to manually change. Not sure exactly what the underlying issue was but changing this setting seemed to resolve it. Cheers!

Hi I'm trying to run my analysis using bi-facial modules set onto a ground profile. Once I have established my shading scene the model gives me the following error message 'Your PV system is not suited for the bifacial 2D model computation:' but fails to explain why. The shading scene is correct and PVsyst has validated it, and is a direct copy of the built system I am modelling this on. Is anyone else having this issue? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Further to this, it would be useful if you clarify the figure given for the backtracking angle within the hourly results. Example - if my module angle (Phi) at 7.00am is -2.0 degrees, is this the instantaneous angle at 7:00am or the average of the angles between 6:00 and 7:00? Many thanks

Hi When a tracking system is specified with backtracking - how is the sun angle approximated for each hour? Is it the average sun angle for that hour that's used to determine the backtracking angle? Also, what is the standard assumption for the backtracking angle on a cloudy day? Do the panels backtrack as normal or do they act differently? Any further information on this would be appreciated. Many thanks

Having imported a .csv ground file successfully I am trying to set the tables onto it. To do this I go to "Tools" - "Position tables on scene". Normally this works fine and the tables follow the contours of the ground profile. However, I'm now using v6.4.1 and when I go through this procedure the tables do not position onto the ground profile but the height (z) of the tables resets to 0.05m and remains on an independent plane to that of the ground profile. I cannot therefore run a realistic shading scene with the tables positioned on the ground. Has anyone experienced anything similar and found a solution? Much appreciated.