Shadings from imported scenes

[tecnun]

Hello Team,

We used to simulate shading scenes from module layouts for better accuracy. But in this new 6.61 version I am getting the scenes imported from DAE or 3DS and now Module layout doesnt work. Why? In this case each PV area is just 1 module. Anyhow in our models there are a lot of complex shading objects as there are complex roofs and sometimes of more than 1000 modules so even with the fastest way the simulation last eternally. I dont know if i am using what you guys called graphic accelerator and anyway eg my computer has got only 2Gb RAM. What can i do?

Another lagging problem coming from this imported 3D scenes is that eg if we use Google Sketchup the modules are divided in PV planes and paralepiped boxes underneath so PVsyst "sais" that these objects are too close to the pv planes and we have to separate them manually taking a lot of time to the system to calculate the new distances scenario. Do we have to select module plane and "box" (cells and housing) together as pv generator to save this lagging process?

A lot of questions hopefully you find a solution for taking advantage of all these drawing potential of 6.61 v. Anyway in some weeks i am buying a 16 Gb RAM laptop dont know if that will help....

Best Regards Jose

[tecnun]

Dear Sylvain & Team,

Dont know if the questions were clear, I m going right to the main point: When you have as many PV FIELDS as modules (ONE module correspond to ONE PV field)...the shadows losses calculation takes into account bypass diodes action (eg setting the difference whether the modules are in landscape or portrait) ... the fact is that MODULE LAYOUT mode is disabled in this case or I dont know how to use it.

Thanks in advance

Tecnun

[Sylvain Pepoli]

Hello,

If Module Layout is disabled then you have to make sure that your shadings match your system definition (PV area and orientations).

If Orientation, System and Near shadings are OK, then you should be able to define the Module Layout.

About the distance check between fields and objects, you can disable it by clicking on "Tools -> Disable field interpenetration check".

Shadow losses only take bypass diodes into account when using the Module Layout definition in the simulation.

Maybe you can't fill the fields with modules because of the margins ? If your fields have the exact same size as a module then try to set the module spacings to 0.00 and try to click on "Set modules" again.

[tecnun]

Thank you Sylvain,

I ve tested importing from Sketchup without spaces and it keeps on considering them as individual PV fields. Anyway i could calculate shadows in module layout by increasing the area in a few cms. The problem is that now the electrical losses are fewer than the same scenario with 1 PV field!! I have separated modules by 2 cms and the result is the same (??). Another new question that comes to my mind is whether the results disabling interpenetration check are better than without doing it (in other word what creates more inconsistences).

Thanks, BR

[bernhardHoefner]

Hello PVsyst,

did I understand it right, that in simulation mode "Module Layout Option":

- PVsyst consider the internal layout of the selected module-type (cell and bypass diode positions in module)?

- a sub-module string (1/3module) ist "switched off" / bypasses as soon the sub-string is affected by a bit shadow?

- according to that the simulation result ist different when using landscape or portrait module orientation

that means, in row arangements I can compare the losses of both arrangements realistic?

I want to have all lower landscape modules connected to different inverter than the upper modules and hope to reduce the shading losses by that.

I am just checking, if PVsyst ist the right tool for me for simulation.

Regards, Bernhard