Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Hallo, ich habe deine Anlage sowohl im alten SolarEdge Site Designer als auch im Online SolarEdge Designer eingegeben, auch in diesen Tools kommt die Meldung, dass alles OK ist. Wir haben die SolarEdge- Auslegungsregeln sehr genau mit SolarEdge abgesprochen, es würde mich sehr wundern, wenn es an dieser Stelle ein Problem gibt. Zur Sicherheit habe ich die Anfrage an SolarEdge weitergegeben, ich gehe aber davon aus, dass die Verschaltung erlaubt ist. Viele Grüße Rainer
  3. Dear Vishnu, the current rating for the circuit breakers is determined as follows: Determine the maximum AC current of the connected inverters (taking into account the maximum AC output power, the grid voltage and the number of phases) Apply safety factor of 1.1 Choose the smallest current rating that is bigger than this current from the list: 6, 10, 13, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 63, 80, 100, 125 A The characteristic is always B, except for inverters with transformator (K) oder with ENS (C) Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  4. Yesterday
  5. Glad to know about the fix, thanks. About the map API, without being much of a priority comparing to other issues, it would be nice to have it reviewed or to use other tool. Right now for a couple of projects of mine I had to take a google maps print screen at a more appropriate scale and then manually enter the scale on PVSOL. This quite defeats the purpose of this feature having the maps right there.
  6. Yes, please do put QA over any release rush! Can't wait to take it out for a spin though... ☺️
  7. Hallo, habe eine Anlage im PV Sol geplant mit folgenden Komponenten: 52 Winaico WST285M6 - Ausrichtung Ost 52 Winaico WST285M6 - Ausrichtung West Wechselrichter: Solar Edge SE25K Jetzt hatte ich 4 Strings a 26 Module geplant - PV Sol hat nichts angezeigt, dass dies nicht geht oder das die Überprüfung nicht möglich ist und man die Anlage in SolarEdge Site Designer überprüfen sollte. Heute bin ich dann darauf hingewiesen worden, das ein SE25K nur 3 DC Eingänge hat und eine zusammenlegung von 2 Strings a 26 Modulen nicht möglich ist, weil 52 Module den Grenzwert von 11250 pro Strang überschreiten würde. Woran könnte es liegen, dass PV Sol hier keine Warnung ausgibt??? Wäre schön wenn ich eine Antwort bekomme, weil nun weiß ich nicht inwieweit ich PV-SOL bei SolarEdge Anlagen "vertrauen" kann.
  8. Hallo Marcel, ich scheine das gleiche oder ein ähnliches Problem zu haben. -PVSOl Testversion R14 - mit Modulaufständerung Wenn ich die Anlagenplanung mit 3D Visualisierung verlasse läuft die Abschattungssimulation durch, bei der Berechnung der Diffuseabschattungsgrade stürzt das Programm ab. Wenn ich die 3D Visualisierung ohne Verschaltung schließe, kommt keine Fehlermeldung, allerdings wird dann ja auch keine Abschattungsimulation durchgeführt. Ich habe auch schon das Modell durch ein anderes ersetzt rund reingeladen. Das Problem bleibt bestehen. Können sie mir weiterhelfen? Liebe Grüße, Anna
  9. Hallo PVSol Team, I was wondering how PVSol calculates the rating of circuit breakers needed after the inverter and after the bidirectional meter for a system. z.B. the following system uses Solaredge SE7K 3 phase inverter with max output current per phase of 11,5 Amp. PVSol suggested a 16A breaker. Could you please explain how this suggestion was made? Thanks.
  10. Hi electricalchild, if all goes well, you should see PV*SOL premium 2020 R1 starting from tomorrow until the end of the week. Maybe next week, it always depends on how well the tests go. Please understand that we can't give exact dates. Kind regards, Martin
  11. Please Can you tell me exact time for the PVSol 2020 premium ?
  12. developer_mh

    PVGIS > PVSOL

    Dear Remu, there are a whole lot of reasons why simulation results differ between PVGIS and PV*SOL. 1. The climate data used is different. Most of all the irradiation data, which has the strongest influence on the results. The standard in PV*SOL are climate data from Meteonorm, while PVGIS uses its own compiled climate data. See these forum threads here: 2. The simulation models (and even the simulation approaches) are completely different. We follow a time-step based approach (in one-hour or one-minute intervals) that is simulating very accurately the irradiation on module, their temperature, shadows and so on, the electrical generation inside the PV module (with the two-diodes model), the interconnection of various modules and the superposition of their IV characteristics, the inverter behaviour, grid behaviour and what not. PVGIS is following a factor based approach, as you can read in their documentation. In the example you posted here, they just apply a loss factor of 15% to the results and that's it. I'd say, PVGIS is more a tool for a first good guess of the energy yield of a PV system. They do a really good job in integrating meteorological data from various sources, and the web interface is superb. You can click very easily on every point in Europe and see how much a average PV system would generate. PV*SOL is more a tool for designing and simulating PV systems that you are really going to build in real life. You can select real world PV modules, inverters, choose and modify their configuration and so on. You can't really compare the tools, as the scope and the input data used are so different. If you want to dig deeper in our simulation models, have a look here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/ Here is also a link to the documentation of PVGIS: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/PVGIS/docs/methods Hope that helps, Martin
  13. Last week
  14. Remu2

    PVGIS > PVSOL

    Dear Martin, Team Valentin, Hope you had an great weekend. We wondered how it is possible that the kWh/kWp ratio of PVSOL in a south-facing installation (0 degrees) can yield more than the outcome of PVGIS? All factors that we can work with are the same; angle, orientation, location, etc. Thank you in advance. Greetingz!
  15. Hi Joao, thank you for reporting this bug, it is already fixed in the next major release. Unfortunately the zoom level isn't something we can easily control as it is an integer value that is given to the various map APIs. There are no values possible between e.g. zoom level 16 and 17. At least not with the tool that we use to access the APIs at the moment. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  16. developer_mh

    Dirt on modules

    Hi Kenn, as Vishnu already mentioned, there are yearly or monthly soiling values that you can edit. Either you do this for all module areas at once, or you can edit these values per module area, if you enable the checkbox "Enter module areas individually". Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin @Vishnu: Thanks a lot for answering this question!
  17. Hi, PV*SOL premium 2019 (R14) When creating a new 3D system from a map, the rotating tool arrows on the small tool box ribbon do not work, neither of them, Rotate Left or Rotate Right. The zoom level on the other hand is quite aggressive, it would be nice to have at least the double number of steps while zooming in and out. Video demonstration: Don't know if this goes on time for the new release next week, but it would be nice to see it, even if on a patch level build afterwards. Cheers, -jprates
  18. Vishnu

    Dirt on modules

    hey Kenn, do you mean "how to calculate the losses due to soiling"? You can see the %loss due to soiling on modules in "Simulation" option.
  19. Earlier
  20. Thanks for the feedback, I truly appreciate it. Agree that as a design and general analysis tool PVSOL is probably one of the best out there, if not the best, no contest there. I think we need to distinguish 2 situations here: One is about requests for new features which to me seem basic and should have been there since ever (example full cabling systems) and another quite different is bug fixing to let existing features work as designed/advertised by Valentin Software. I’m resigned with waiting 1.5 years for a proper 3D module, and basic missing features missing like allowing AC junction boxes, cabling of mounting systems, etc. But neither I nor anyone can accept VS refusing to fix horrific bugs in memory allocation that prevent advertised existing functionality to work. If you have an application that crashes with out-of-memory error when it's only using 1.5GB out of 16GB with over 10 GB available, you need to accept there is a bug and fix it. EDIT: Let's not get off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to warn others not to fall into the 3D photogrammetry import trap on PVSOL, it's not about my problems.
  21. For a bit of balance - we work mainly in the range 100kWp-2MWp and get on very well with PVSOL (over the last 5+ years). The 3D model import isn't great so I tend to use the inbuilt 3D modelling. If I want to make attractive images for a proposal I use sketchup, for accurate yield projections I use PVSOL. I think viewed as a design and analysis tool PVSOL is great. I understand your frustration that PVSOL can't do everything but if you don't push the 3D modelling too hard it is great for - shading analysis, roof layout, stringing. I haven't used it much but the other well regarded PV software package is PVSyst, by the look of the videos the 3D modelling is much more basic than PVSOL. I think the admins have offered you a refund on you subscription, if you really don't get on with the software get your money back!
  22. Just a friendly reminder the original question posed on this topic still remains unanswered, we're almost 1 month passed without clarification.
  23. Hi @Leon Norris, In order to prepare yourself to much bigger trouble, read this thread first. Judging by the size of your file, you'll have to do lots and lots of decimation first before even succeeding in importing into PVSOL. If your software doesn't support decimation and you don't want to spend lots of money, I recommend the freeware MeshLab, it does a decent job at this. Going back to the thread above, please remember you'll have to get bellow ~400k vertices to be able to import into PVSOL - your scan will get very low quality. Use .obj file format, it's the best one to import in PVSOL according to VS, and I do recommend you use .png for the texture file format, we found problems when using .jpg. GOOD LUCK!
  24. Hello, I'm Leon and we are working on the project that involves 3d scanning with a drone. We've made 2 flight attempts so far and got pretty good scans but the problem is that STL files are so huge, 350+mb at least. What steps can be taken to reduce the size of 3D scans without significant loss of quality? We've never faced a problem like this before - in fact, all our efforts were aimed at improving the quality of 3d scans. Would you mind enlightening me? Does changing the file format reduce its size? Our software can export STL, OBJ and other formats (https://www.artec3d.com/3d-software/artec-studio#compare-studios). Is there any 3D application that can decrease the quality of 3D model textures? We may try to make another flight and "split" a 3D scan into several parts, but I'm not sure it will work. Any advice would be greatly appreciated Regards.
  25. Hi @timgreen13, No, unfortunately no, and Valentin Software did not help either. In fact I just got a notice from WeTransfer saying no-one has downloaded the zip I sent to help them diagnose the issue and the file will be deleted in 2 days time... it's just sad: What I do know is that this is a memory allocation bug, PVSOL seems to always crash when slightly above 1GB memory usage. You can live with this if you have either a very simple system and 3D model or very few modules in it to compute shadows. In my case to prove PVSOL could simulate the shadowing with a few modules I deleted them all except 100 units, and indeed the sim ran fine with these 100 modules alone. Of course no-one would buy a 1k+ eur software to design small systems with just a few modules, so this is not acceptable.
  26. Kenn

    Dirt on modules

    Dear PV-SOL, Can you inform me who to calculate with dirt on modules in a 3D calculation? Thank you in advance. Best regards Kenn
  27. Hi Joao Prates Thank you for the detailed information ! So one question ..do you know approx what the max size of area m2(3d building) that i possiable to import(after you drone him) and still have a good resalution ? thanks
  28. Some of Valentin's PVSOL Premium potential customers might have, as I did, decided to buy the software based on 3D modeling and shading simulation capabilities. Several anecdotal evidences of this capability can be found on this forum, and on promotion materials spread across several media by Valentin Software sales team. Let me give some examples below... Above - PVSOL Online Shop suggests drone usage for photogrammetry Above - Youtube tutorial suggesting the use of photogrammetry software for 3D import (Pix4D) Above: Feature advertised online since 2017, note the mention to "3D objects created with photos taken from a drone" I guess these examples should be enough to prove the spin over 3D photogrammetry and real life 3D models import into PVSOL. Most people most probably will do the same as we did, download the software and try it out with simple small examples, and it does work, how nice... we then decide to buy the software. Unfortunately it's only when starting to use it for real, with real projects, real data, real photogrammetry, that the trouble starts... errr... ok... let's go smaller then... decimate 3D model and retry... oops... there is a limit of ONLY 500.000 vertices! Anyone with the thinnest experience in photogrammetry knows 500k vertices is nothing, any model with such a low count of vertices is either a single building alone with very little detail and very decimated, or the scene is in terribly low quality with lots of 3D defects. This 500k vertices limit renders the 3D photogrammetry almost useless. In order to work with photogrammetry 3D models one has to decimate the model to a number of vertices really below the 500k vertices limit, because as reported in this other thread (without answer for weeks now) the vertices count is wrong and includes some own PVSOL vertices as overhead, limiting even further the model quality. We have no choice but to comply with the previously unmentioned limits, and we decimate the model further, making the 3D almost unrecognizable, and voila it finally loads and we can start designing the PV system believing all is well now, apart from the 3D miserable quality: This illusion ends as soon as we press the "Start shading frequency" button with the option to show shading percentages on the modules. With the example above, with only 320 modules, the application crashes with an "out-of-memory error": Now this is very strange because this is a 16GB machine and memory usage by PVSOL process never went above 1.4GB on all of the tests we did, so there is a nasty bug here. Valentin official answer is to just say we ran out of memory (despite proof we did not), and telling me "We would use the planning mode with map section.", yes really! So we are working with a 3D model decimated already to just a few hundred vertices, and still PVSOL can't cope with it. Astonishing! We did not give up, and went to the extent of DELETING part of the 3D model objects, parts that would not interfere with shading on the modules, and decimated even further. The result was an .obj file with just 82.034 vertices, that’s 16% of what PVSOL claims to be able to handle, and guess what... it still crashes and can't simulate shading. Conclusion: Don't be fooled by Valentin Software claims over the use of 3D import of photogrammetry models, it's nothing but a toy for micro systems, it's not for professional use. Hope this narrative is useful to anyone considering buying PVSOL Premium based on 3D photogrammetry imports. PS: I have found PVSOL capabilities in regards to computation to be flawless thus far, if you don't mind a miserable 3D component, it's worth it. The 3D module however is just lame. PPS: The worst part on this is that Valentin Software refuses to admit it has a memory management bug, and provides no real assistance nor solution apart from dropping 3D import.
  29. I reseted the software yesterday. Today, when I tested it, it worked. Maybe because I opened the sites listed above in the navagator before open in PVSol. I dont know why. But, now its working. Thank you. Flavio Narezzi
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...