PVsyst's forum

Welcome on PVsyst's forum.
It is currently Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:46 pm

All times are UTC+02:00

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:31 am 

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:36 pm
Posts: 2

I have performing simulations for complex terrain using a 3D model pvc import from PVCASE. There seems to be an underlying difference in how PVsyst calculates near shading losses depending on how you determine the orientations, either using the automatic identification or manually defining them. For an experiment, I increased the tolerance of the automatic identification tool so that only one orientation was recognised and also separately selected all the tables imported and created an orientation from manual selection. Both ways resulted in a single identical orientation so I would have expected that the near shading loss table/graph to be the same also, but this was not the case. In fact the resultant shading curve are very different (please see two attached images).

Could you explain what is the underlying difference in the near shading loss calculation between the two methods? If this is an error (I ran this experiment for both 7.2 and 7.1 versions), could you let me know which is the more representative.

File comment: Manual orientation identification
man.JPG [ 130.6 KiB | Viewed 327 times ]
File comment: Automatic identification
auto.JPG [ 128.7 KiB | Viewed 327 times ]
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC+02:00

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited