dtarin

In NA, backtracking with bifacial yields higher than non backtracking I believe in most cases I've seen (c-Si module). I did a test on a site of mine in Southern US; backtracking was 1% higher in total energy than non backtracking. Near shading loss on a 39% GCR without backtracking was ~6%. In seeing your high irradiance, I picked a different location (Chile) with similar yearly GHI, and this trend was also present for this region. 39% GCR, one module in landscape, using the 3D shade scene for calculations and not unlimited sheds. This trend would be the same for monofacial. I would suggest building out your model in the 3D shade scene and ensure your inputs are correct and the same for both models (pitch, etc).

Did you model with the unlimited sheds method in the Orientation menu? The electrical effect loss is not shown in the backtracking version's waterfall. I would double check you have modeled shadings properly for both cases. Even when electrical loss is zero, it still displays in the waterfall in v6.78. Either using the unlimited sheds method, or constructing a shade scene and using the "according to module strings" option (more accurate method). These two statements are in agreement and say the same thing. Backtracking reduces POA and lowers shading losses. The reports confirm this. "Total irradiance received" = global incident in collector plane. Make sure you have properly modeled these with regards to shading. If you have a very low GCR, it is possible your shading losses without backtracking are such that the POA gain is higher than the shading loss incurred. Location may be a factor, you have very high irradiance; might be something unique to your location.

I would think so. It 'd be ideal if the option in the bifacial option syncd with what is selected in orientation parameters/shade scene.

My guess is that one is for the shading loss and transposition calculations, etc, and the one located in the bifacial section is for the bifacial calculation. Checking all, one, or none in that case would give you a different result in each of the three scenarios.

Hello, It would be helpful if PVsyst were to permit the simulation of a non-uniform pitch in the shade scene with a bifacial system. Perhaps it could compute an average pitch, or the user could enter a single pitch for the bi-facial calculation.

Interested in hearing feedback on this.

How did you define your partitions? It's possible that the pole shading is not significant, and with backtracking, results in approx. 0%. In the winter time, module loss according to strings is probably low, and when weighted with the rest of the year, does not result in noticeable losses. When I do a test, I get .001% elec effect losses.

I also have this issue.

Hello, Presently when entering module X and Y spacing, PVsyst takes N modules (X or Y) times the spacing and adds it to either width or length. Should this be N-1 modules times the spacing, and then added? This would present a method which allows PVsyst to match construction design drawings.

Hello, It would be useful to allow the electrical effect parameter to go above 100%. The purpose would be to tune models where there is disagreement with measured data as it is concerned with shading. In cases where the model under predicts, it would serve to add additional shading related losses appropriately, by keeping the additional losses as a function of site conditions, time of day/year, etc.

It is possible to download SolarAnywhere data as a .csv file or as a 'SolarAnywhere' file format, in which the latter would use the SolarAnywhere menu selection in PVsyst.

Hello, Are there any plans to have zones work with tracker systems? Or some other method to modify tracker designs more easily? Presently it is a very manual process and cumbersome process to work with trackers. It would be useful if a selection tool allowed an array block to be split as selected. For example, a rectangle is drawn encompassing a number of tracker rows, and creates new blocks which remain in place. From these three separate tracker blocks, 9 are created, which allows the quick removal if the middle area in the area needs to be removed during a later design stage (image for reference).

Hello, It would be useful if when a table or shed is copied/pasted in a shade scene, it takes the name of the table copied and adds a numerical value which increments by 1 so that each copied table/shed/object has a unique name. Copying/pasting sheds/tables saves time, but when there is an error associated with one, presently it will refer to the name of the table; if copied/pasted, it will have the same name unless a unique name is entered each time, which is time consuming when there are a number of elements copied/pasted. Thanks.

Hello, It would be useful to be able to select multiple 3D polygons and edit the height for all simultaneously. Presently, only color can be modified when selecting multiple polygons. Thank you.

If you imported the SolarAnywhere file as a .csv, you will use the NREL TMY3 format for import, no modifications needed. Edit: I just tried importing a .csv solaranywhere file using the solaranywhere format and I also received that error, so I would suspect that is also what you are doing.

Have you figured this out?

Related to this suggestion and modifying tables, it would be nice to have included the frame size in this menu (picture shown for tracker sheds)

This can be overridden in the OND file. Under Contractual specifications, uncheck the box next to "Maximum PV Current". This has no impact on the simulation results.

There was a previous forum post which said +/- 1 degree would still simulate, but i set my trackers to +0.5/-0.5, and I still received the error.

Hello, Is it possible to model a horizontal N-S tracker system in a single shade scene with different tilts? It seems not. If it is indeed not possible, is it something that could be added in the future? Thank you.

Will we be able to import ground data for terrain and have it selected as a bifacial ground object?

Change the setting in your hidden parameters under Detailed Simulation Verification Conditions

How long is the data set (how many months), and how did you do the comparison to come to a delta of 1.2%?

Hello, Does the inactive frame which borders a module matter for calculating POA, or rather, is it used or not used to calculate POA? This area is included in the module dimensions, so in a shade scene, the area represents the entire area of the module (cells + frame). But for production purposes, I am assuming that the cell area is used, is that correct? Is the amount of incident light used to generate the energy results based on the cell area, or on the module area? Hopefully the question is clear enough. Thanks.

Hello, I have noticed for a project that several parameters under detailed losses are not showing up as such in the waterfall, as they are entered in detailed losses. LID, MQF, and mismatch are all different from what I have entered. I am also getting higher temperature and irradiance losses (compared to 6.7.5). Running the same project in 6.7.5 results in the previous behavior; what is entered for LID, mismatch, and MQF is what shows on the waterfall. Could PVsyst shed some light as to why all of these parameters are now different in 6.7.7? I did not see anything in the release notes mentioning changes such as this. Additionally, the Array Nominal Energy is not being calculated correctly on the waterfall.