dtarin

Hello, It would be helpful to be able to upload low light data for PAN file modification either by copying/pasting or uploading an excel file, rather than entering each point manually.

Enter the shade scene builder under Near Shadings > Construction/Perspective. Zoom in to the PV plant, such that the view you want on the report is showing on the screen. Once you have that, select "save this view for the report" and then select "load report view", then exit and generate pdf.

With the anticipation of increased use of bifacial modules in the future, it would be useful to be able to include hourly albedo data which is used in the calculations, perhaps imported with the meteo data when creating the MET file.

Does this mean it is now valid to model trackers with a misalignment?

You may need to reach out to the manufacturer for the derated value, whether it be a curve or tool they provide. I dont see anywhere in the software (OND file) which allows for elevation derate. You might then clip post-process anything higher than the derate value @ your elevation.

Hello, I am interested in understanding two of the bifacial modeling inputs better: rear side shading, and rear-side mismatch. Have there been any updates as far as research or studies go which shed light on providing realistic values for these inputs? It seems the PVsyst default numbers are 5% for rear-side shading, and 10% for rear-side mismatch. How were these values arrived at? Thanks.

It is not possible to model trackers on a ground terrain. You can only slope them in the N-S direction using tilt.

In version 6.7.2, when I select a tracker array in the shade scene and set azimuth to say 11, the array is adjusted accordingly. If I then deselect the array and reselect it, the azimuth is reset to zero. It seems to me the azimuth should remain to what it is set to.

I would check graphics card drivers, install a different pdf program, and instead of saving to pdf, print it to pdf like cute pdf, etc.

Depending on the inverter you can use the multi mppt feature to model across different sub-arrays assigned to different orientations. This can be done to model different orientations, modules, etc.

Replacing that with average would be good (and stating it as such).

Hello, It would be nice if we could hide a ground CSV data like we can a ground image. I would like to keep it in the shade scene but not have it show in the report.

Hello, In 6.7.0, when a monthly soiling profile is used, the yearly loss factor value is also being displayed on the report. It doesn't seem to affect the calculation, but is a little misleading when reading the reports.

Hello, In PVsyst 6.68, when I load a project with a shade scene utilizing multiple zones that was created in an earlier version (usually 6.63 for me), not all of the zones are present in 6.68. Usually just the first zone is, and the rest are deleted, not present at all, but all of the objects in the shade scene are there in the same manner as they were constructed in. The zones are present in 6.63 but not 6.68. I also tried saving the shade scene in 6.63 and then reloading it in 6.68 (by reading scene) and they were still missing.

There is not as far as I know. You will need to create two variants.

Thank you for the reference. However the issue I have arises when the angle tolerance is less than 1 degrees. In hidden parameters, we can define a tolerance of 0.1 degrees, but it doesnt seem possible to manually define orientations with such a tolerance. The result always reverts back to a single orientation (in my recent case).

Hello, I have a shade scene with ground terrain, and I'd like to divide the design up into four sections that are relatively close together in terms of average tilt and azimuth. In Hidden parameters under Detailed Simulation Verification Conditions, I have set the first six values to 0.1. However under project settings > other limitations, the minimum value allowed is 0.5 for discriminating orientation difference between shading planes, and 1.0 for maximum orientation difference for defining average (spread) orientation. What I think is happening is that the project settings are overriding the hidden parameter settings, and because my orientations are close together, the orientations I manually define in the shade scene using the orientations tool keeps reverting back to a single effective azimuth. Can the minimum values allowed in project settings > other limitations be reduced to 0.1 degrees to allow for more granularity in defining orientations?

What type of fence?

I see it in mine. This is for a N-S horizontal tracker with backtracking enabled. Version 6.6.8. See image for reference.

Hello, It would be very useful for testing and validation of plants if one were able to select a single, specific table for which the software calculates and exports global incident irradiance for, and outputs separately 8760 data, a variable called something like GlobInc2. For example, I have a site with terrible undulations, and it is constructed with a single irradiance sensor in a particular location near a module. It would be useful to report the global incident irradiance for that location, while still running my simulation in the usual fashion that it does. I imagine it to be an option under tools called irradiance analyzer or something like that, where a dialog opens up for which I can select the table or tables for which to output a separate global incident irradiance for. I dont know if this is already possible, please inform me if there is some existing way to extract such data. Thank you.

Maybe this picture helps.

What if you increase tolerance to say 20 or 30 degrees and identify orientations? You can also update the setting under project settings. Also try saving the project and reopening. Sometimes it sticks on a previous error message.

You can use the "edit orientations" feature under tools to remove all of the orientations, and then create a single new orientation where you add all of the different zones to the one orientation. Once completed and you exit the shade scene, you will update orientation parameters.

Good question. I would like to know if anyone has a link to some studies on this.

It is 2.