dtarin

I am also curious to know the answer to the question above. I also have a question regarding this same feature, so I hope you dont mind me piggybacking on your post. I ran a parameter optimization with a tracker system varying pitch, and the result does not give me different energies based on the pitch. Is this feature properly working for tracker systems?

I have selected module layout, and a particular attribution method. It seems that for a specific section of the array, the attribution method changes. In the image provided, the bottom 3 rows are properly filled according to the method selected. However the top 5 rows do not follow this method. I have tried it several times, regardless of which string I start on, the result is the same. What would cause this and Is there a way to make the filling method consistent? The shade scene is 5Hx6L in landscape.

Does PVsyst take into account the frame around individual modules as area which doesnt produce power, or does it have the ability to define this region? It seems to me in most cases shed frame should be set to zero.

Here is my MEF file you can try. NREL PSM 5.zip

If I am understanding correctly, the inverter must have the MPPT share feature, and you can distribute your power that way across multiple arrays. For example, if the inverter has 8 MPPT inputs, and you enable MPPT share with two arrays, each array will get N MPPT inputs (whichever is the appropriate split). In number of inverters, you will select N. The chint inverter shown has three mppt inputs, so if I have one inverter and two arrays, I have to distribute the three inputs between them, and then press adjust to balance. Looking at the attached image with 15 MPPT inputs, I am specifying that there are 5 physical inverters (5*3) for this array.

I use the module quality field in batch mode to simulate DC degradation over time. I dont get PDFs, but have a macro to assemble the csv files together into a spreadsheet.

I have a PAN file in which Pnom does not match Vmp*Imp with a discrepancy of 0.75%. The parameters match the datasheet, however. Does this have any effect on the simulation apart from calculating the performance ratio? I dont typically use it for anything, I am only concerned with specific production and the energy estimate.

What I have done is created a ground object to reflect terrain conditions (hills, slopes, etc), and then created a zone on top. When you fill the zone with modules, they will be placed onto the ground object. You may need to select "place tables on scene". If you have certain parameters to adjust like frame size and module spacing, you will want to adjust these in hidden parameters first.

You will select TMY from the PSM tab. I select the items in the picture attached.

Hello, Is it possible to misalign a row of sheds only on one end?

Going to piggyback off your post since it is related, hope you dont mind. It would also be nice to limit individual inverters. Sometimes we have different inverters for a single site curtailed differently.

Did you save the shading scene in the shade construction? Sounds silly. I imported a shading file from someone who created it in 6.41, and I kept getting that error. I spent a while trying to figure it out, and then I saved the shading scene in the construction view, and it worked.

Andre, When you say "table-module", do you mean one one module? It seems to me that when we perform detailed calculation according to module layout, it performs the calculations as if there were 3 sub-modules. Is this correct? The reason I say this is that I am working with a shade scene now, where the difference between the according to strings method (100% elec effect), and detailed calculation according to layout method is around 2.3%, which is quite significant. This is if I partition the modules as the size of 1 string, 1 in height, 18 in length. The layout is 2 modules in landscape. If I model according to strings and set the number of partitions in height to 6 (modeling the submodules), my losses are very close to what results in the detailed calculation according to module layout. Using version 6.49. So is the according to module layout the most accurate method for calculating shading losses?