Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/22/2014 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    1. More control when drawing lines: snap to 10cm or input to drive line length 2. Snap to mid point of line - the ridge of a roof is almost always in the middle 3. ctrl+Z to undo 4. better control when rotating the camera position 5. Higher resolution on panels when zoomed out 6. Default project image zoomed out enough to show whole array Keep up the good work PVSOL team.
  2. 2 points
    - would like to see an undo button as discribed above. (or at least be able to lock a complex building and their surroundings, so one misclick doens't destroy your work) - need more options for EV. (e.g. distance travelled per week day, range according new WLTP system) - while the software perfectly suits my technical needs, it seems lackluster/old as a client proposal. - could we have a blanc page in the customer presentation where we can add project or installer specific additional information. - some presentation pages need additional (customizable) information. (while a graph or scheme or just some numbers wth a title above will be very clear for us, a customer most of the time doens't know what he is looking at) - file size of the presentation should be smaller, but pictures should still be high res. - would like to be able to send an electronic presentation to a customer with some analytics possibilities. (where do customers actualy look at?) - easier construction of "complex" buildings. (depth of building schould be addapted to the angle and dimensions of the roof area being used for the array)
  3. 2 points
    Martin, I was genuinely thinking it was my fault the data was not being adopted, that I had done something wrong. It never crossed my mind this could be the intended behaviour by design. The logical approach (at least to me) would be to use 3D to take precise length measures and then adopt them into the 2D design. I always assumed this was the case. As it is it makes absolutely no sense at all, I can't understand why was this module designed like this, and I see it's not just me. What you're saying is that all of the trouble of designing combiner boxes, different cable sections, strings combined into arrays, etc, it all disappears into ONE SINGLE magic number. Just as @timgreen13 pointed out, one is expecting to see cable losses by section, see individual string lengths and losses, etc, because if not then what's the point of all that detailed "painting"? We need to check if individual strings and individual arrays are above our own loss thresholds, to be able to correct them if necessary. Having just one global loss number won't let you see that, you might even have 5% losses in one string branch and get 0,8% global losses in the system. Again I'm in the position of having this powerful software (PVSOL) I paid for that won't do basic functionality, and having to go back to freeware manufacturer software (SUNNY DESIGN) to get some of the design steps done. After fine tuning the strings and cable sections on SUNNY DESIGN I will have to go back to PVSOL and try to input MPPT equivalents... can you see how cumbersome this is? The more I work with PVSOL the more frustrated I get, really, it should be the opposite. You guys do the most difficult part, the math simulations, to unimaginable precision (congrats on that!), and then fail at the most basic functionality and design elements. Go figure...
  4. 2 points
    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
  5. 2 points
    If the program was released after your maintenance ends, the program will start as test version. To fix this : Uninstall this version and install a version released before your maintenance end. Renew the maintenance.
  6. 2 points
    Dear Bernard, unfortunately this is not directly possible, no. But you could do the following: copy the data of the horizon line table to the clipboard, paste it in Excel subtract 180 from the azimuth values copy both azimuth and height values to a text file use space as a value separator save the file as *.hor Of course this would only include the horizon line and no near objects. May I ask the use case for the hor-export function? Perhaps we should consider implementing it in the future. Thanks, Martin
  7. 2 points
    Dear Bernard, thank you for your interesting question. The hor files only contain the horizon line value pairs. That is, those values only apply for shading objects that are far away from your pv system (=horizon or very distant houses or the like). The horizon line always has a transmittance of 0%. For near shading objects like trees you should not use hor files, but real 3D objects instead. In the 3D planning environment in PV*SOL premium you can choose from several objects like chimneys, walls and said trees. Those trees can have custom transmission factors. The difference between the shading by the horizon line and the near shading objects is that if the sun is behind the horizon line, there is only diffuse irradiance. There is also no shadow caused by direct sunlight since there is no direct sunlight anymore. Near shading objects however can cast a hard shadow on the pv system, depending on the sun's position and the geometries of the object and the pv systems. Those shadows can lead to important changes to the I-V characteristics when parts of the pv system receive full irradiance and others only the diffuse fraction (as described here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/pv-field/ ). Hope that helps, Martin
  8. 1 point
    Dear Vishnu, please do not apologize for aksing these questions. You can be sure that if you have the question there will surely be others that have the question as well. 1) Unless the manufacturer explicitly forbids the usage of modules with higher power, you don't risk the loss of warranty (but I am not a lawyer) or damage of the micro inverter. As you said, in usual conditions a 340 Wp module is not delivering 340 W. What you risk if you connect a module with higher power, current or voltage to an inverter is the clipping. The inverter just cuts anything that is over these threshold values, and you loose a bit energy. How much you loose can be verified in the results section, under "Energy balance". 2) Yes, clipping occurs for current, voltage (min and max) and power limitations. And yes, you are right, most of the employees of Valentin are Berlin based. Thank you for your wishes, same to you! Kind regards, Martin
  9. 1 point
    Good afternoon, I think it would be a good idea if Valentin software developers make a wish list in the Forum for the users so they can have a feedback of what is more important and required by the costumers/users and if they are mentioned very often try to include them in the following releases. Here are my wishes ­čÖé 1- More stand alone inverter/chargers/components brands, as Victron, Steca, Ingeteam, Solarwatt 2- Bigger area to develop bigger projects 3 - A better relation with 3D software as Sketch-up 4 - The possibility of include some images/pictures or even text in the final report (for clients would be interesting if we can include in one only document the pictures of a visit for example or special information) 5 - BIM/ifc files compatibility. Thanks for your attention. Kind regards
  10. 1 point
    Hi everyone & Valentin, we're creating an orientation and pitch chart to show others clearly the kind of performances to expect. Like a compass - difference in Orientation axis follows around the chart, and difference in pitch runs from the centre to the circumference in smaller to larger circles (0 degrees to 80 degrees pitch). So the first circle from the centre represents 10 degrees pitch, the second circle from the centre represents 20 degrees pitch and so on. It's quite smart and will hopefully give clarity to others than Northern facing systems still produce an acceptable level of generation. This is what we've made so far as an example; ...All we've done above is estimated what we think the chart would look like. We'd like to make a PV Sol experiment on what the chart would actually look like. So to do this I'm noting down the PV Sol PV Generator Energy (AC Grid) value for every different combination of orientation and pitch. I've made one for Newquay UK using 14 SunPower Maxeon2 350 panels and a solis 3.68kw inverter (no shading). Just as an illustration; Just using my simple head I would have initially thought East and West orientations would mirror eachother down the South line, as in East and West would give equal or similar energy - lets say 20┬░ due West would provide the same amount of energy as 20┬░ due East. But then this is Newquay, there's the ocean to the West which would skew the results to favour the West though a big water body Albedo. So then I tried other locations; Baldhu UK, Norfolk UK, Riyadh SA and PV Sol shows West orientations generate more PV Generator Energy (AC Grid) than East orientations. Couple of questions please; is there a location in the world where East and West orientations match PV Generator Energy (AC Grid)? am I missing something here... generally speaking is it normal for West orientations to generate more than East? Thank you everyone!! Yours, Jordan
  11. 1 point
    Hi, I was wondering, is there an option to undo changes in PV SOL, other than not saving and simply opening the last saved version of your file? Something in the line of Ctrl+Z in MS Office. Thanks!
  12. 1 point
    Hi Remu, you can use the Enphase inverters in the automatic or manual configuration like any other inverter as well. Here in my example I have 44 modules on the roof, so I use 44 Enphase inverters: You can also select all Enphase inverters using the link under "Suggest Configuration", and let PV*SOL search for a valid configuration by clicking on the arrow. Regarding the DC and AC power values of the Enphase IQ7-60. Its values are correct in the database: You will have to allow for sizing factors (DC power / AC power) of above 140%. You can do so by clicking on "Configuration Limits" and then set the upper limit to 150 for example: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  13. 1 point
    Hi Remu, thank you for reporting this error. I will forward it to our database team at database@valentin-software.com. If you find any errors concerning the database entries in the future, you can also report it to them directly. Kind regards, Martin
  14. 1 point
    Hi RobS, your issue seems to be connected to DPI settings. Look into this answer (and thread) for further help: Hopefully this helps! Best regards, Frederik
  15. 1 point
    The first point mentioned by Jon is an issue since back in 2013. And also the lack of the 3-D-Rotation is definitely not state of the art anymore. Especially for a program with a 4-digit-price. The software maybe was good in the 2000's, but today, 10 - 20 years later? Compare the value-for-money-ratio with AutoCAD or MatLab - PVSol's price is way too high for what is offered. The only good thing is the incredible database - but for somebody like me, travelling a lot and therefore often having problems connecting into the internet, the new policy with only online-database is now getting a pain in my furthest backward part. Overall I believe they are on a quite good way of loosing pace if they don't get into refurbishing their software and marketing policy. My only hope are people like you and me - explaining their needs and hopefully be understood as constructive critcizers.But to be honest... If the way they handled my requests on phone reflects their attitude, I have considerable doubts about helpful progressive changes.
  16. 1 point
    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.
  17. 1 point
    Hi Joao, just a short feedback: I can reproduce the problem with your projects, and I haven't found the reason for this behaviour yet, but what I can say so far is that it doesn't affect the simulation results. And there is also a way to make it visible in the project report again. Load your project, go to results page, see in the energy balance "PV energy (AC) minus standby use", it is 128738,39 kWh Go to presentation page, create the report -> your horizon is not visible Go to 3D environment, Terrain View, right click on Horizon, open and close it with OK, and say OK to the warning "This action deletes the results of the shading simulation". Go back to PV*SOL, let the shadowing simulation run again Go to results page again, see in the energy balance "PV energy (AC) minus standby use", it is still 128738,39 kWh Go to presentation page, create the report -> your horizon is visible now We will look into the reason why the horizon lines disappears in step 1 and 2, but this will be next week. We are sorry for the inconvenience this may cause. Kind regards, Martin
  18. 1 point
    ­čśů No bugs there! Thanks Martin.
  19. 1 point
    Hi Joao, yes, this is normal. Only Bugfix/Smaller releases inside one major family replace the preceding installation. For example PV*SOL premium 2020 R4 will replace 2020 R3, but 2020 R1 will not replace 2019 R14 or any other version before it. This is intended behaviour, as some customers still want to use their old version for a while, and only switch slowly step by step. If you don't want 2019 on your machine, it is safe to uninstall it. Kind regards, Martin
  20. 1 point
    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
  21. 1 point
    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
  22. 1 point
    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
  23. 1 point
    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, thatÔÇÖs 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.
  24. 1 point
    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!
  25. 1 point
    Dear Remu, yes, if you click "Add Row" below your first string, you can add a row for each module area (for each roof). Then select "Connect strings in series". Then all rows with the same string number will be connected into one electrical string. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  26. 1 point
    Dear Developers, i'm "playing" little bit with the cables planner just to see how it works and etc. i made this for example(questions below): why the cable losses AC are 0% -what i need to do in order to see something :)? because i tried to change allot of things and it's always 0% another thing: if i confirm the design above and will go to the cable losses : 1.why on the schematic drawing there is no information from the 3D cable modeling (cable length and etc.) the only thing that has some connection is the 0.95%(in gray) that mean if i want i can put it in the total losses right? Thank you!
  27. 1 point
    Dear PVSOL team, Is there a way to centre / fit better the project overview photo generated in the presentation? I noticed that the picture is always cut and it doesn't catch the entire view of the project layout. Thank you and appreciate your feedback on this issue. Alex Suciu
  28. 1 point
    Dear Remu, merci beaucoup pour votre question. If you want to supply all colleagues with the same database, the procedure described in the thread is correct, but in the meanwhile, the database files can be found in the directory C:\ProgramData\Valentin EnergieSoftware\PVdatabase\Version6.0 The file you have to copy is "PVSOL.sdf" If you don't see the folder ProgramData on your C drive, select the option for hidden items in the Windows Explorer: A side note: In the next major release, PV*SOL premium 2020 R1, which will be published in January 2020, we introduce online databases, where you can very easily share database entries across different computers. Kind regards, Martin
  29. 1 point
    Dear Bulent, thank you for your question. In PV*SOL, we use climate data from the well-known climate data specialist Meteonorm, see here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/irradiation/climate-data/ PVsyst also uses Meteonorm, so in terms of irradiation data there shouldn't be any difference between PV*SOL and PVsyst. Do you have an example project where we can see PVsyst and PV*SOL energy yields side by side? Often the differences in the energy yield come from the models that are used to calculate the irradiance on the tilted plane of the PV modules. These models can be modified in the program options under Options -> Program Options -> Project Options -> Simulation: Regarding values from SolarGIS: Yes, it is not unusual that climate data values can vary within +- 15 % between the sources. SolarGIS uses mainly satellite data, if I remember correctly. Meteonorm uses mainly ground measurement stations in combination with satellite data. And then there is PVGIS which also uses satellite data and whose values differ both from SolarGIS and from Meteonorm. See some details about the meteorological approaches here: SolarGIS: https://solargis.com/docs/methodology/solar-radiation-modeling Meteonorm: https://meteonorm.com/assets/downloads/mn73_theory.pdf PVGIS: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_static/pvgis5.pdf As you will soon realize, there is no true or false for climate data. Nor is there any "higher values are better". It depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to achieve a higher simulated energy yield than your competitor, yes, you might be willing to choose the data source with the highest irradiation for a given place. But what happens if this simulated energy yield is too high? Won't the customer be dissappointed? We think that on the ling run, it will shed a negative light on the project planners and users of our software (and the whole industry), which is why we always try to provide simulations that are conservative, but sitll realistic. The climate data of Meteonorm do fit nicely in this "conservative" concept, where the yield that we simulate is nearly always topped in reality. But of course, you are free to import any other climate data into our software and simulate with that. A guide how to import climate data from other sources can be found here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/system-type-climate-and-grid/meteosyn/#options Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  30. 1 point
    Hi UserPV, in the case of the example project "Solar Park Neuhardenberg incl P90", we have module degradation as well as P50/P90 analysis. See these topics for more information: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/financial-analysis/bankability-p50p90/ https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/pv-modules/module-degradation/ These two factors effect the amount of energy that is fed into the grid in the first year. If you set the P50/P90 bankability to 50 and the module degradation to 100% (no degradation), then hese two numbers are equal: You can play around with the factors to see how they influence the results. Kind regards and good luck, Martin
  31. 1 point
    Im Bereich Wirtschaftlichkeit w├Ąre es sch├Ân, wenn man eine Laufzeit f├╝r den Bereich Kostenbilanz separat einstellen k├Ânnte. Z.B.: 20 Jahre Betrachtungszeitraum und 18 Jahre f├╝r Betriebskosten.
  32. 1 point
    As it's Friday I thought it would be nice to share an interesting PVSOL challenge and 2 solutions. I am working on a curved building with a curved roof. solution 1: modelled in SketchUp with measured flat sections on roof to place panels - this looks pretty but took ages to get curved roof to meet curved walls. Solution 2: built in PVSOL 3D design, multiple 2m wide single pitch buildings (lots of trigonometry) - this will be more flexible for small adjustments in roof pitch.
  33. 1 point
    Hallo GeromeK, vielen Dank f├╝r das Projekt. F├╝r die anderen Leser fasse ich mal die Anlage-Konfiguration zusammen: In diesem Fall sind 14 Module mit SolarEdge P370 Powert-Optimizern auf einer Dachfl├Ąche (Nord-Ost) in Reihe geschaltet mit 10 Modulen auf der gegen├╝berliegenden Dachfl├Ąche (S├╝d-West), die ebenfalls mit P370 ausgestattet sind. Der SolarEdge Wechselrichter SE7K, an den die Module angeschlossen sind, hat eine feste MPP-Spannung von 750 V. Was in diesem Fall passiert, kann man sich anhand der Kennlinien in den Ergebnissen ganz gut visualisieren. Die Aufzeichnung der Kennlinien kann man in den Programmoptionen unter "Simulation" aktivieren. Ich nehme mal als Beispiel den 01. Juni um 14h. Da wird die s├╝d-westliche Dachfl├Ąche mit 1013 W/m┬▓ bestrahlt, w├Ąhrend die im nordosten nur 75 W/m┬▓ abbekommt, da sie im Vollschatten liegt. Dadurch ├╝berlagern sich die Kennlinien der Power-Optimizern zu folgender Gesamt-Kennlinie, die der Wechselrichter sieht: Dunkelblaue Kurve: Strom-Spannungs-Kennlinie Hellblau: Leistung-Spannungs-Kennlinie Das ├ťberlagern der Kennlinien l├Ąuft in einer Reihenschaltung ja so, dass sich die Spannungen addieren, w├Ąhrend die Str├Âme gleich bleiben. Um die MPP-Spannung des Wechselrichters zu erreichen, braucht man mindestens 13 Module mit P370 Power-Optimizern ( 750 V / 60 V = 12,5 - die 60V kommen von der maximalen Ausgangsspannung der P370). In diesem Fall werden aber nur 10 Module voll bestrahlt, die restlichen 14 auf der nord├Âstlichen Seite tragen kaum etwas bei. Daher sackt die Leistung knapp ├╝ber 600 V auf der Gesamt-Kennlinie ab und der Wechselrichter sieht nur noch etwa 1000 W statt der eigentlich verf├╝gbaren 3100 W. Diese Verluste werden dann der Abregelung wegen des MPP-Spannungsbereichs zugeschrieben und sind insofern korrekt. Das zeigt mal wieder, dass der Einsatz von SolarEdge-PowerOptimizern nicht zwangsl├Ąufig zu einer Ertragssteigerung in jeder beliebigen Anlagen-Konfiguration f├╝hrt. Auch hier muss sehr genau (wie bei herk├Âmmlichen Wechselrichtern auch) auf die Verschaltung geachtet werden. Daher wird auch von SolarEdge f├╝r die neuen P370 bei 3phasigen Wechselrichtern (wie der SE7K einer ist) eine minimale Modul-Anzahl von 16 vorgeschrieben, um diese Art von Verlusten zu vermeiden. Siehe hier: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-p-series-add-on-frame-mounted-power-optimizer-datasheet-de.pdf Darauf wird bei der Verschaltung in PV*SOL auch hingewiesen, wenn die neuen P370 gew├Ąhlt werden (die mit worldwide im Namen). Beste Gr├╝├če, Martin
  34. 1 point
    Hi, When I have an AutoCAD drawing of a building or area as seen from above (top view), I usually import it via the "Coverable object - Map section" under the 3D Design tab. The problem then is to create buildings which have the exact length, width and orientation as those shown in the drawing. What I normally do is to "Sketch a 3D Polygon" which coincides with the drawing as much as possible and then stretch the sides until they are as close to the real dimensions as possible. However, if for example the building's length is 25 m, often I will end up with either 24,976 or 25,012 m but never exactly 25. I know this sounds picky, but sometimes the customer will ask for drawings detailing the module layout and it doesn't look good when the drawings show incorrect dimensions. Is there any way to input the exact dimensions manually? When I try to Edit a building after extruding it, funny results ensue: Thanks and regards, Ricardo
  35. 1 point
    The topics of the webinar: - On-Grid system - with net metering and electric vehicle - MeteoSyn - Load profiles - Photo Plan, Roof view - Polymorphic configuration and power optimizers
  36. 1 point
    Hallo Kamal, auch bei den DC-gekoppelten Batterie-Speichern wird die Anzahl der Batterie-Systeme (2x) und die Anzahl der Batterien pro System (3x) angezeigt. Bei DC-gekoppelten Systemen ist zu beachten, dass sie immer am ersten Wechselrichter h├Ąngen. Bei generator-gekoppelten DC-Speichern am erstern MPP-Tracker des ersten Wechselrichters. Wenn zwei DC-Systeme gew├Ąhlt werden, sind sie also beide am ersten WR angeschlossen. In Zukunft wird man die Zuordnung auch einstellen k├Ânnen, aber derzeit verh├Ąlt es sich wie oben beschrieben. Beste Gr├╝├če, Martin
  37. 1 point
    Hi Tim, if you refer to .dwfx and .dwf file format from Autodesk, I am almost sure that you can export your models into .obj or similar in their programs. I don't have AutoCAD here, so I can't test it, but it should work. Kind regards, Martin
  38. 1 point
    You need to go into coverable object dropdown and select map - should pull address in from first tab.
  39. 1 point
    Hello James, first of all, we are very happy that they like this feature. Answer 1) Of course you are absolutely right! Since the Boundingboxes of imported 3D-models are rather rough, it can be difficult to push the models together. I have already added the feature for Release 2. Answer 2) Could you please send the project file to hotline@valentin-software.com, then I can have a look at it. Many greetings
  40. 1 point
    Hallo Goofy, ja, das geht auf der Seite PV-Module mit dem kleinen Taschenrechner-Button neben dem Feld f├╝r die Modulneigung: Damit wird in Abh├Ąngigkeit des Standorts, der Ausrichtung und falls vorhanden der Horizont-Verschattung die optimale Neigung f├╝r die Module ermittelt. Das funktioniert auch f├╝r die einachsig nachgef├╝hrten Systeme. Beste Gr├╝├če und viel Spa├č beim Optimieren! Martin
  41. 1 point
    And I changed the title of your post. Hope that is ok with you
  42. 1 point
    Hi Yaroslav, of course you can! You'll need module mounting systems for this which allow for any orientation you could think of. Perhaps this short video might answer your question already: If not, please let me know. Kind regards, Martin
  43. 1 point
    Hallo Sigma, Insel-Systeme kann man erstellen, indem man in der Anlagenart-Auswahl (auf der Seite "Anlagenart, Klima und Netz") die netzautarken Systeme w├Ąhlt. Dabei haben Sie die Wahl zwischen Systemen mit oder ohne Backup-Diesel-Generator. Beste Gr├╝├če, Martin
  44. 1 point
    Hi Bernard, thanks for your question! Azimuth values with decimal point will be ignored when you import the file. So in your example, only those two value pairs would be imported: -180 2 179 20 Cheers, Martin
  45. 1 point
    Hi Bernard, yes, you are right, the azimuth values in the hor file only need to go from -180 to 179. If you provide a value for 180┬░, it will be ignored. Thanks for the correction! Also, you don't necessarily have to provide all data points from -180 to 179, you can also just provide some arbitrary value pairs in between that range. This for example would also be a valid hor file: # comment line This is also a comment line -180 0 -133 13 -117 6 a comment somewhere else -94 2 -17 4 19 7 62 7 101 1 144 7 171 6 And your remark about the horizon line captured by the SunEye is absolutely correct, of course. Near shading objects need to be excluded, if you are in 3D mode of PV*SOL premium, since you will place those near objects there. Thanks for pointing that out and for providing the link to the user guide.
  46. 1 point
    The program needs a relative constant and stable internet connection. If this is not guaranteed, then the program aborts the download of data. Alternatively you can also try to download the latest program version from the download section of our webpage: http://www.valentin-software.com/en/downloads/products Please execute the downloaded setup file. The old program version doesn't need to be uninstalled.
  47. 1 point
    Is there a limit to the system size in PV*SOL?
  48. 1 point
    Hallo Sebastian, die gew├╝nschten Ergebnisse stehen in der Energiebilanz zur Verf├╝gung. In der Pr├Ąsentation k├Ânnen Sie die Ergebnisse der Teilgeneratoren derzeit leider nicht ausgeben. Sie haben allerdings die M├Âglichkeit, die entsprechende Tabelle in der Energiebilanz in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren und in z.B. Excel oder Word einzuf├╝gen. Ziehen Sie dazu, mit gedr├╝ckter linker Maustaste, ├╝ber alle Eintr├Ąge. Diese sind dann markiert und k├Ânnen durch anschlie├čendes Klicken mit der rechten Maustaste in diesen Bereich in die Zwischenablage kopiert werden. ├ľffnen Sie nun Word, Excel, o.├Ą. und ├╝ber "Einf├╝gen" k├Ânnen Sie die Tabelle dann in diese Programme kopieren. MfG Ihr Support-Team
  49. 1 point
    Is it possible to import horizon files into PV*SOL or T*SOL? Which tools are compatible?
  50. 1 point
    Hinweis: Bitte den n├Ąchsten Post mit aktuellen Hinweisen beachten Wahrscheinlich versuchen Sie eine Planung in 2D zu machen. Die Planung von PV-Anlagen mit Leistungsoptimierern ist nur in der 3D-Planung verf├╝gbar. Deshalb erscheinen keine SolarEdge Power Optimizer in der Wechselrichterauswahl von 2D. Die Leistungsoptimierer regeln f├╝r die einzelnen Module eines Stranges den MPP, sodass bei komplexen Verschattungssituationen, wie z.B. Teilverschattungen, nicht alle Module des kompletten Stranges einen verminderten Ertrag liefern. Eine Verschattungssimulation f├╝r einzelne Module findet aber nur in der 3D-Planung statt. D.h., der Vorteil von Leistungsoptimierern, gerade bei komplexen Verschattungsoptionen, kann nur in der 3D-Planung simuliert werden.
×
×
  • Create New...