dtarin
-
Posts
883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dtarin
-
-
After writing that, perhaps the issue is that your prj file itself is missing the .SIT information, in which case manual creation might be the solution.
-
You can always create one from notepad just to get it loaded or extract the site information from the .prj file. Look for the following (and remove the text after the underscore). Some changes will need to be made; I think you just need to add the version below the "Comment=..." line.
If you're creating from scratch, I think the main things you need are coordinates, altitude, timezone. The meteo data that is contained in the site file is not used in simulation.
PVObject_SitePrj=pvSite .... .... End of PVObject pvSite -
Hello,
It would be great if we could specify .SHD files in batch simulations.
-
16 hours ago, Linda Thoren said:
Hello,
Indeed the PVsyst simulation is hourly based, so any sub-hourly phenomenon has to be averaged. This includes the weather data or self-consumption.
The main reason for this limitation is that we currently consider that Perez’s transposition model is not well calibrated for sub-hourly data (EUPVSEC 2023).
Sub-hourly simulation should be available in PVSyst 8.1, but the release date is not yet defined (it will be after 2025).
Will the Perez-Driesse model be included as an option in the future?
-
Export the data (values) from the graphs and you will get short circuit values for V and I.
-
Electrical shading loss has been around for a long time. It is likely the 7.2 report was run on linear shading, or the site was modeled perfectly flat with backtracking enabled and no shading objects present to cause electrical shading loss.
-
You can change the settings for both types of messages. The shade scene module count has no impact on simulation results.
-
2x28 = 4 vertical, 1 horizontal for half-cell module
-
norm.inv(Pxx,0,1). P99 is 2.33, not 2.35
-
Cannot get custom tracker to save in v8.0.12. Once shade scene is exited, it remains all trackers.
-
Change this under advanced settings. I suspect there might be something else going on, but here is how to override the error.
-
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
-
Near Shadings 3D scene assistance
in Shadings and tracking
Posted
You are modeling "detailed according to module layout". You need to place these modules in the tables in the module layout menu. Select "according to module strings" and it will use the shade scene as it has been provided. The total area of the shade scene is relatively close to the pv system.