unilhexio

In the latest version 6.66, the shading scene always appears cutted: https://image.ibb.co/eU2ZGR/Screen_Shot_10_30_17_at_04_44_PM_001.jpg

Thanks, Jean-Marie. I will take a look. I did it by copying the PVGIS data in a PVsyst standard data template. Regards!

Since PVGIS has totally renewed their database (now it is hourly instead nonthly), it is not possible to import directly this type of data. It would be a great update to do this possible.

It would be wonderful if someone from PVsyst could clarify these issues. http://forum.pvsyst.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2754 Evenmore, if you set RMS dispersion values for Isc and Voc to zero, the batch calculation for Energy injected into grid is zero for all the years!!! Sinceresly, I have lost my hopes and I don't know what to do about this.

It seems that in the 2nd case you don't have AC losses... Anyway, I think that PVsyst only considers power factor in terms of Active = Aparent * cos (Phi). It does not take into account how the equipments, cables, etc... affect to reactive power.

From version 6.6.4, the preview of shadings losses graphs does not work propertly: https://image.ibb.co/hCjVzF/Screen_Shot_09_07_17_at_11_50_AM.jpg

Dear PVsyst team, Have you revised this issue yet? I don't see that it had been solved in the latest PVsyst version... Regards.

I am using the latest published version of PVsyst (v6.61). The above comment and pictures are from PVsyst v6.61.

I have seen the following issue when generating a final report in the case of trackers with an azimuth different to 0º: Page #1: http://i67.tinypic.com/2uysxgh.jpg Page #3: http://i66.tinypic.com/zlar2e.jpg Why does "0º" appear in page #3 if I have defined an azimuth of 13º and it is correctly defined in page #1? Regards,

It seems I am alone in this discussion, but the ressults from the batch calculation do not match with the results from the final report simulation. There are slight differences (in the order of some kWh) in Energy injected into Grid and I think PVsyst support team should consider this issue. Regards.

I would appreciate a response about this issue...

It does not keep IAM profile neither.

I have this problem only in new projects (created with v6.60).

Hi, In 6.60 release, I have observed that the Uc and Uv values are not saved when you exit from a project . Uc goes back to default value of 20 W/m2K and Uv goes back to default value of 0 W/m2K/ m/s. The same occurs in the case of Soiling Losses. It goes back to default value of 0%. Regards.

The case I have tested: The following shows the mismatch parameters as I stablished: http://thumbs.subefotos.com/903bbcd26d5c63a97c436af14ba5ef55o.jpg And the following shows the batch parameters I want to change: http://thumbs.subefotos.com/1794a8fcc28eea2017ac310ab5ed44dfo.jpg The following is the batchparams .csv file as I have defined it: http://thumbs.subefotos.com/5352dce5bd7b9f4ee831c47b18e82404o.jpg An the following is the Batch results: http://thumbs.subefotos.com/4517935500acbff8e9b6b2cb540d1aa7o.jpg The following shows the PVsyst simulation results for the second year (stablishing "year 2" in ageing): http://thumbs.subefotos.com/221213437be8550379be53024f03c7c4o.jpg Summarizing: For 2nd year, the PVsyst simulation leads to a PR of 85.1% and 12.081 MWh/yr (12.080.597 kWh/year). For 2nd year (SIM_3) batch calculation leads to a PR of 85.14 and 12.089.130 kWh/year. I am not sure if the right simulation would be SIM_2. In that case batch calculation leads to a PR of 85.4 and 12.126.279 kWh/year. None of the above Batch ressults are matching with what I obtain directly in PVsyst simulation for 2nd year. If I repeat the batch calculation I obtain the same ressults again and again. By the way, the same occurs in every project I do. I don't think it is related with this project, particularly.

I am testing now the calculation for several years, and the results that I got in batch simulation are not the same than I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool. In "batch simulation", I have specified Degradation-> year of simulation", and then in the csv batchparams file I have introduce the years I want to simulate, but the Energy Injected into Grid that I obtain after batch simulation is sliglthly higher than the results I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool. What can be wrong? Is the batch simulation taking into account the mismatch increase due to degradation?

Dear André, I am testing now the calculation for several years, and the results that I got in batch simulation are not the same than I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool. In "batch simulation", I have specified Degradation-> year of simulation", and then in the csv batchparams file I have introduce the years I want to simulate, but the Energy Injected into Grid that I obtain after batch simulation is sliglthly higher than the results I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool. What can be wrong? Is the batch simulation taking into account the mismatch increase due to degradation?

I am doing at this moment 5 different configurations, for a period of 25 years each. This is 125 PVsyst simulations. I patiently hope PVsyst developers would take this suggestion into account.

Solved! Surely I did not do the steps that you comment. Thanks!

At least in the lastest PVsyst version (6.53), I can not save my own scene view for the report. PVsyst shows the default generated view.

Thank you for your response, André. It will be an important improve.

Yes... but nobody answers anything about this request.

In the case where applies, I introduce it as seasonally soiling losses

It is an idea, but module quality is not the same than degradation. The behavior is different...