dtarin

Any graphics driver updates recently?

Yes When you open the PVsyst report, and export the loss diagram (export > Loss diagram values), it states "Global effective energy"

You can modify in advanced parameters. There might be conflict in PVsyst between the setting shown in project settings and the setting in advanced parameters, they are referenced in opposite ways (shading/field vs field/shade). I have always modified in advanced settings with no issues.

Some of these loss assumptions can be defined in advanced parameters from the main menu. When they are updated here, you can check the default box under Detailed losses to set them. Note that module quality factor (when using the default button) will take into account the tolerance assumption set in PVsyst and what is declared in the PAN file. Default wiring resistance = DC loss LID mismatch module quality loss

Correct me if I am wrong, but you can manually calculate the correct PR by including the rear-side irradiance. For a vertical system, this is necessary since the rear-irradiance contribution is significant, and you will likely have irradiance instrumentation on both sides of the module in a constructed facility.

IAM data is the easiest to identify. Low light data (if included) and resistances would be other items, but it is less obvious as to what is correct or not. They will have an impact on production if not properly accounted for.

GlobEff is front side irradiance only after loss considerations (IAM, shading, soiling, etc). To get total irradiance as requested, you need to add the rear side irradiance gain * bifaciality to GlobEff. If you export your waterfall to excel, it will include additional information not shown in the report. It will show you GlobEff and it will also show you GlobEff + backside irradiance, labeled Global effective energy. @PVsyst admin, it would be helpful to rename one of these terms, as the same name is being applied to two different variables.

Understood, however, it is more time consuming to go through each item one at a time on sites with challenging topography and several items. If there is a revamp, displaying all at once and highlighting the modules would be helpful.

Thank you for the reply. The concern is not with development, but the inability to run two subversions at the same time. It is not possible to properly investigate new versions for differences in production or report issues to support while still being able to carry out work responsibilities should we encounter any errors in the updated version. As it stands, I need a second license on a second machine to run two in parallel.

Yes.

There is a bug from 7.2.9 to 7.2.11, see https://forum.pvsyst.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5669. Very problematic, I downgraded to 7.2.6 until it is resolved.

It is showing you the loss there of 0.1%. Set the combiner distance to 0.6m to enable the optimization box to minimize copper mass. it has little effect on the result.

Run both simulations separately, then add the energy in excel. You will need to recalculate things like capacity factor, yield, etc. based on the total plant size. For other parameters such as PR, POA, and the waterfall losses, you will need to use a weighted average to determine these.

If you still cannot get it, try making each distinct orientation a separate group in the shade scene, then try the method stephane has stated.

Your best bet is to reach out to enphase directly.

Getting this in 7.2.11. Cannot save as new variant to resolve, or create a new shade scene; problem still persists.

Your modules are too close together. Create spacing between modules, and make sure there are no other objects penetrating the modules. You can use "Check Scene Validity" under tools to identify the modules that are impacted.

Create two subarrays. In the OND file, add 10 mppt inputs and resave the OND file. Check the multi mppt, on the 235 subarray, set the mppt input to 1, on the 310W array set it to 9.

That is correct; albedo concerns albedo irradiance. Correct Yes in fixed tilt systems there will always be a beam loss (for multi row systems). The electrical losses are separate from irradiance losses, however. One or more tracking manufacturer(s) have presented half-cell backtracking optimization, however I do not know what PVsyst is currently working on as far as implementing the more advanced backtracking methods in the market (I do not work for PVsyst). Implementing backtracking for every single table in the shade scene would be nice, but I am sure there are challenges with doing so.

Inverter losses due to temperature derating will be captured in Inverter Loss over Nominal Power if the OND file has defined a temperature derating curve. Verify that the OND file does and it matches the inverter spec sheet. PVsyst will not break these temperature related losses out separately, but with some work in excel, you could determine the hours and amount of clipping coming from temperature derates.

LID loss is available as a batch variable and an output variable. You probably have not defined an LID loss in the variant you are running, and so PVsyst will not display the variable. Enter a non zero LID and save the variant. When you run your batch runs with desired LID values, it will override what you have saved in the variant and then will be available in the variable output.

These are shading loss factors, so 1-FShdBm = 0% beam loss. 1-FShdGl = 1-0.9846 = 1.54% global shading loss. The individual shading ratios are not as informative when we dont know the calculation steps PVsyst is taking, but the global shading ratio can be calculated, see screenshot. When there is backtracking and no shading objects or terrain consideration, the beam loss is zero, which is why it is showing a value of 1 for the ratio. So, a value of 1 = 0% loss, a value less than 1 means there is a shading loss contribution for that irradiance component. *There is not a horizon shading loss in this example, but if there were, then it would not be GlobInc in the denominator, but instead GlobHrz (global irradiance after horizon loss)

What this is telling us is that the shading losses are contributed by the diffuse and albedo components. If you refer to the link below , it states that the albedo component is affected by both the size of the plant and by the tilt, and effectively for large plants the albedo is near-zero. I suspect there is a mathematical operation on the albedo shading factor we see in the 8760 before computing the global shade factor. https://forum.pvsyst.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2522

That is an outdated post. It has option to limit at the inverter or the point of interconnection.

Extruded polygons are not included in the object management menu in 7.2.9.