Jump to content

Shading loss changes in near shading irradiance loss and electrical loss as versions evolve

Recommended Posts

Hi PVsyst team, I am noticing some changes in shading losses as I go through version updates.  These are some general observations.  Sometimes running the shading the first time generates different results than the second time.  Sometimes the values within "irradiance loss" seem to reduce, while the values within "electrical loss" increase.  In version 7.2.16, when comparing unlimited sheds (fixed tilt), vs. the same set of inputs in near shadings, the losses are more significantly different than they used to be in earlier versions.  I understand you might need specific files to check what is happening.  But can you comment generally on whether the shading calculation methods and algorithms are getting updated intentionally with version updates?  We now have the capabilities to implement more and more complex shading scenes.  Can you comment on how robust the calculations are with complex scenes?  Do you have any recommendations for us as modelers to ensure that shading calculations remain accurate even when running complex scenes?  Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the info. Another post was already mentioning this kind of recomputing issues.

We are investigating the matter but we haven't been able to pinpoint the exact issue yet.

Regarding differences between unlimited sheds and 3D scene, yes, an example would be valuable. If you have such a project with an earlier calculation and a newer one, you can send it at support@pvsyst.com. It could be very useful for us in terms of tracking possible bugs.

In terms of shadings there mostly have been bug corrections (as far as recent patches are concerned), hence the robustness has mostly improved. But the calculation itself has not changed.

For complex tracking scenes, we have added the possibility to change the 40 tracker cap, above which the diffuse shadings calculation was simplified. This simplified calculation sometimes leads to incorrect results, whenever there are patches of trackers instead of a single homogeneous patch. If you are in such a situation, we recommend you check out this advanced parameter:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you, I will try the 40 tracker cap modification.  What value do you recommend raising it to, for example if I'm modeling  a system with 5000 trackers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...