dtarin

Also, simulate your "Flat" scenario according to strings. It looks like you have modeled it with linear shadings, so this isn't a good comparison.

What does the module strings table look like? This table confirms the near shading loss. For confirming electrical loss, run the shading analysis in the shade scene and it will graphically show the electrical effect losses, can help get an understanding of why your elec. eff is high.

For the extruded polygon, it is allowing the edit of heights when multiple polygons are selected. For example, when opening the equipment list, the properties of the polygons cannot be edited. It would be great to allow height to be edited in this field.

Never mind, I see, maybe set to 12 and 36 inputs for workshop 1

Pull configuration 3 out, it is not sharing any inputs? Try having 15 inverters with MPPT share, and 5 without, in which the 5 are for configuration 3 - workshop 3

Each zone receives its own definition for the table size, so create a zone with table dimensions A, then create zone 2 and go to field properties and create second table dimensions.

I would answer yes to your question but with some fine print. For FT as you say, PVsyst can be set to use different averaging intervals to arrive at up to 8 distinct orientations for monofacial simulations. Maybe this could be lifted since we can have unlimited sub-arrays now? For bifacial systems, a single orientation is needed. This is true for both FT and SAT; however, SAT doesnt have the same checks that FT does. Placing two tracker arrays at different azimuths does not activate any errors when it should. When placing trackers on terrain, the Z coordinate does not matter for bifacial. The tilt is calculated as an average automatically, and trackers are placed at the same azimuth. If you place trackers at a different azimuth, the software will not detect and it will select the last change detected (or something to that effect). There are some things you can do to have PVsyst detect the orientation is incorrect, but it will always just select one of the arrays and then let you proceed, which that in itself is also incorrect. I have not tried multiple azimuth tracker systems from PVcase, though, so not sure how PVsyst handles it. We dont see those in designs though so probably not worth looking into. In any case, the different with SAT is that 1) tilt is calculated automatically as an average 2) they're always at the same azimuth, so bifacial has no problems. There is a single orientation used for the calculations. With FT and terrain, you can use bifacial, but you must average it out to a single orientation.

This seems to be a normal occurrence for high irradiance, low temperature conditions. You want to look at EArrayMPP as this is the energy going into the inverter. EArrayMPP - InvLoss = EOutInv. My understanding is that the MPP point results in higher production than what EArray is calculated at during these conditions (high irradiance, low temperature), and the former is what is used for inverter output calculations. PVsyst perhaps can comment with more detail as to what EArray in physical terms. EArray - Effective energy at the array output (taking inverter operating point displacements into account - not represented on the Loss diagram)

Yes. Yes, along with setting the correct pitch and height from ground. You also have the option to define a center gap if the tracker has one.

Hello, A couple of suggestions/requests here: Add relative humidity as an output variable in the 8760 Allow extruded polygon height to be edited from the equipment list

Hello, When using power factor and applying a grid limitation, the pvsyst report makes no indication of where the limit is applied. We are thus unable to verify how it was implemented when reviewing a report. If a user selects account as a separate loss, this loss always appears after the AC losses, but the amount will vary depending on if it is applied at the inverter or at the injection point. One suggestion is to rename "Grid Injection Point" or "Inverter Injection Point" depending on the selection (see photo) Another, possibly in concert to the above or in place of - Re-position the unused energy loss (due to limitation) according to the appropriate selection; at the end of the waterfall for grid injection point (aka point of interconnection), or after the inverter losses for inverter level limitation

The total ohmic loss is a single loss, the sum of the weighted averages. This would correspond to a single transformer loss, the sum of the transformer losses. If you wish to use three then use the straight average. My preference would be to use the former. Run both and check the difference

.

Either is correct, you can enter 3 and average the no-load and full-load loss, or add them into one. Since you have combined the MV ohmic losses into a single loss, I suggested to do the same with the transformer, perhaps a bit more accurate instead of averaging them, since pvsyst is using the total power into the transformer

Your total power loss is 0.106%. The first segment carries 1/3 of the total power. The second segment carries 2/3s. The final segment carries 100%. That is total loss for the entire plant. Enter that for the MV ohmic loss %.

Calculate the weighted average and enter 1 transformer. If you have the no load and full load losses for the transformer add them together when entering 1 transformer

Thanks, Michele.

If the user selected a backtracking pair under the backtracking management menu prior to computing the initial shading table, is there still a possibility for this to occur? Typically I do not generate the shading table from the shading menu, and instead have it compute during the simulation process. Is there any difference? One last question, what is the approximate error in % you are seeing?

Select* the...

The the auto button in power-sharing screen to balance Pnom ratios.

What I have found helpful for custom PAN files is to rename the manufacturer to something else in the PAN file, such as my company name or custom or "[manufacturer] custom", so they don't show up mixed with the regular 3rd party or manufacturer PAN files.

Thank you for the link, haven't needed to use this in a few years.

There are a number of ways to import your own data if you just want to look at terrain arbitrarily. Here is one. https://portal.opentopography.org/datasets

Add "dummy" mppt inputs by modifying the OND file of the inverter. You can add for example two (2) mppt inputs if it is a 50-50 split, add one subarray with (1) mppt and the second subarray with (1) mppt, which will be equivalent to one inverter. Go into power sharing and allocate it evenly. If it is a non equal split, for example module A is 70% and module B is 30%, then add ten (10) mppt inputs to the OND file, and allocate seven (7) to subarray A and three (3) to subarray B. There looks like a bug though, I am not seeing the information being generated in latest version. Should there be something displayed @Michele Oliosi? I have an unequal number of strings for each subarray and different ratios, but when I click enable power sharing, nothing really happens.

Mismatch loss is not calculated, it is entered by the user under detailed losses menu. Mismatch due to differences in IV characteristics is relatively low, but it is one contribution to mismatch losses; temperature and irradiance differences also contribute to mismatch losses.