linkeshd

Hi @BCON0500, I would love to know more about your simulation. Is the meter curve based on actual measurements or is that also PVSyst output after transformer losses? Does the PVSyst output comport well with actual generation? Thank you!

@c.katharotiya Were you able to resolve the issue? Thanks!

Julmou, thanks for posting this. I just wanted to chime in and say I really appreciate seeing the bug reports posted here in the forum so that I can know what I need to work around.

Also, by the way, the link from the PVSyst help files on the Sandia Module Database section is broken, and should be updated to lead to here: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/919131sca5ep/ (For convenience, this is the page that needs updating: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/index.html?sandia_model.htm)

It has come to my attention while digging into this issue that the Sandia model database has not been updated for a long time. In fact, it seems to no longer be supported by Sandia National Labs, NREL, Sunspot, or other initiatives. PVSyst has allowed the selection of the Sandia model for modules which are not in the database (apparently), but I would love to see some feedback from the PVSyst developers - is the Sandia Model Database for the IAM selection valid anymore?

It has come to my attention while digging into this issue that the Sandia model database has not been updated for a long time. In fact, it seems to no longer be supported by Sandia National Labs, NREL, Sunspot, or other initiatives. PVSyst has allowed the selection of the Sandia model for modules which are not in the database (apparently), but I would love to see some feedback from the PVSyst developers - is the Sandia Model Database for the IAM selection valid anymore?

When opening the Geographical site parameters, in the section "Meteo data Import" the option for NREL/NSRDB TMY" is initially grey and not available. After changing selection to PVGIS TMY, the NREL option becomes available and can be selected.

PVsyst 7.0.8 generates a report showing "PVsyst 7.0.16" in the header.

In PVsyst 7.0.8: Using the graphical tool for studying the Module Mismatch, I know there are some random seeds, but the two tools ("Show histogram" and "Show graph") give widely different results. Using a system comprised of JKM 315PP-72 modules, 19 units in series, 20 chains in parallel, and Normal (Gaussian) distribution, I get the following two behaviors: Using the Show histogram Tool: Pmpp loss average =2.4 %. Clicking "More statistics" increases the random sample pool, but tends to converge around a value similar to initial value (in my case, it jumped to 2.8% then converged down to 2.4% as I increased the sample size). This is reasonable and expected behavior of a randomized normal calculation. Using the Show graph tool: Each calculation gives wildly different results, ranging from 1.5% to 4.5%, and jumping widely with each recalculation. This is counter-intuitive and dissimilar to what I experienced in PVsyst 6.8.8 wherein the value shown in the graph was relatively constant. Please check? Thank you!

Removing the administrative access requirement would also enable users to download the patches and updates without needing extensive administrative approval. I'm sure you're aware of this, but Microsoft has a tool called the Standard User Analyzer, especially for this purpose. The SUA will allow your programmers to find and fix all areas where the program requires elevated access in a streamlined manner. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-7/cc722409(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN Happy New Year!

My IT department has an onerous multi-month long process for software vetting and updating. I asked them if there was any way that PVsyst could be updated more frequently, or could be kept up to date with the newer versions, and they took some time to research PVsyst's functioning, and finally suggested the following: PVsyst currently needs administrative access to install, however this does not appear to be necessary based on the system resources and libraries used. IT suggests that the program could be updated to install and run in userspace without admin approval, which would make it easier to update.If PVsyst included an internal tool to update itself (even if just on the minor versions) this would enable the software to be approved and to keep itself up to date. I hope that future versions fo PVsyst can include this functionality. Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Hi! My company has a very onerous software update process, typically takes months to get a software version approved and installed. Currently I am mid-way through approving 7.0.8, but I see that version 7.0.17 is available (as is 7.1). Is there any place where I can see the change log between 7.0.8 and 7.0.17? This will help me decide whether to re-start the process or continue with 7.0.8, which we will likely use for the next 6 to 8 months until we can again start the update process. BTW, after speaking with our IT people, they have some suggestions to make this process easier which I will outline in a separate post. Looking forward to your reply, Thanks, and Happy new Year!

I also have the same issue, using PVsyst version 6.79. Additionally, PVsyst reports that there is no internet connection and Google Maps is unavailable. However I have confirmed that both internet and Google Maps are available. I suspect that the API for Google Maps may have changed, which means we must update. It would be good to have confirmation on this. THanks!

Can anyone confirm whether this has been fixed in 6.75? Thanks!

Dear fellow PVsyst users, I recently was surprized by some very large loss factors when using Boviet 6612P 320 Optimized modules, as shown: Crazy Big IAM Factor Losses Investigating the IAM curve, the Scandia curve looks really strange: Scandia Lab's IAM factor versus others In general, I thought that the Scandia model was experimentally confirmed. Is this the case? Has anyone seen this before? What would you consider a reasonable approach to this? Thank you, Link

Thanks for that reply. I've tried to implement it in a worksheet that I use parallel to PVsyst.

Hi! I can't help with a solution to this, but for someone who can, it may help to know what version of PVsyst?

Dear Andre, Any idea when version 6.74 will be released? I was planning to upgrade to 6.73, but now will wait. Currently using 6.64. Thanks, Link

Good news! I found the problem, the external transformer losses were modeled incorrectly as 1400%. :lol: HOWEVER, I think I have identified a potential bug: The detailed losses input does not sanity-check the input. A loss of over 100% should theoretically be impossible. Thank you, now I go to hang my head in shame :D Hopefully someone will benefit from this someday.

Dear Fellow PVsyst Users, I have a project with multiple sub-arrays, and PVsyst (version 6.67) refuses to display the waterfall diagram. My colleague had this problem as well, with a previous and with this version. I have tried transferring the project to another machine, and get the same results. Is there a fix for this? Thank you, Link PVsyst Waterfall Diagram with multiple sub-arrays

HI André, I have struggled with PVsyst's grid power limitation implementation as well. It looks to me like all the pieces exist for accurate modeling of the grid power limitation, however, whether I choose "Inverter Level" or "Grid Injection Point" does not change that the loss is applied to the "Inverter Loss over Nominal Inverter Power" instead of "Inverter Loss due to Power Threshold". I'm also curious about your statement above. Per my calculations, the difference between 27.2 and 27.17 can easily be a difference of over $100,000, which can significantly affect a project's ROI. (I have assumed 3 hours of clipping for 120 days per year with $3/MWh electricity price). Your thoughts? Perhaps the Grid Power Limitation has improvements scheduled in PVsyst's development plan? Thank you.

If I understand your question properly, you will have 10 strings in parallel. Choose a module, and note it's power rating (say, 300W). Decide how many modules you are going to use (say 100). Then decide the strings (10). Your total power is 300x100 = 30kW. So you need inverters enough to cover 30kW. You can select one 30kW inverter, three 10kW inverters, or any other combination that works. Good luck!

Hi Hamid, Not sure that PVsyst can model an AC PV Module. In practice, an AC module is just a standard module with a built-in micro-inverter. This guide may help: https://enphase.com/sites/default/files/Modeling_with_PVsyst_Tech_Brief_EN_NA.pdf

From my experience as a 3D modeler in Solid Edge, I can say that normal "gaming" graphics cards do not help; there are professional graphics cards that Solid Edge works with. In general, first add More / Faster RAM, then faster HDD, then faster CPU.

Hi, I believe that the behavior you are experiencing is because PVsyst calculates the percentage based on the actual wire, not the other way around. If you add modules, you are also adding wire, which means higher ohmic losses. AFAIK no way to get around that. However, maybe using the "Target Loss Fraction" in the "Detailed Calculation" of Ohmic losses would tell PVsyst to keep it there? Good luck!