dtarin

Have you tried creating a copy of the SIT file in the Sites folder, to see if it shows up in the list?

I am seeing difference of 0.15% in 8.0.12 which is non-trivial. Aging tool on top, PVsyst report result on bottom.

Useful Out and Egrid are the same. I suggest including InvOut It seems IL Pmax will include grid limitation loss when there is a limit applied in the IL Pmax figure, even if it is set to account for loss separately under energy management. I suggest quantifying IL Pmax as its defined in energy management, or by default include POI loss as a separate value, and let users add together if they want. EArrayMPP is more useful than EArray, I recommend adding it or replacing EArray with it.

PVsyst doesn't output 8760 files past year 36. It will complete the simulations and generate the pdf report, but not the excel output. v8.0.12

Simulate with as few trees as possible. Take into account things like the total elevation at the top of the trees (tree height + ground elevation) and the distance relative to the panels.

export simulations to excel. output the variables you need and analyze from there.

This doesnt look off but not enough info here. The difference between 100m and 50m is .07%. Between 8.5m and 50m, energy plateaus. Since you havent included those simulations, it looks linear there.

Losses due to specific objects are not isolated. Shading from turbines will be included in both near shadings and electrical loss in the loss diagram. To isolate the turbines run models with and without them, take the delta of shading losses and you can calculate whatever you need. You will also have energy with this, so you can easily calculate overall energy impact monthly, etc.

EarrNom and all resulting energy are not shown correctly when exporting loss diagram values from the report. The report itself is correct, but the exported values are not.

The 1100UD is one inverter module that is typically installed with other modules in a single PCS, like the 4400UD-MV. You will have four mppts with the 4400, each 1100 is one mppt as stated above.

If it still doesn't work you can always model it as I have above 🙂 The gaps will not matter for bifacial calculations, they are not used. The user defines the transparency factor manually which takes into account gaps in structure, modules, etc. So I'd either model as I have or increase the gap in your method if the suggestion above does not work.

Select 'Disable field interpenetration check' from inside shading scene and see if that works

Try updating this.

I don't have any the details of this system and haven't modeled solar edge in a long time. However, with a zone you can auto set table to fill the zone, auto tilt to adapt to slope of roof, set table size to 1x1, and then use module layout for allocation (electrical loss). Keep in mind this is just for shading calculation, not power, so you don't need it perfect. As long as it is reasonably close to capturing the shading conditions it should be fine. You create a single zone, insert masks, auto fill the zone as shown. This will allow you to model bifaciality.

You can use draw a zone in the shape of the area with PV tables that will allow bifacial computation.