Jump to content


Popular Content

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

  1. 3 points
    Hello everyone, please share your best image/design created with PV Sol. Why? - To show and explain the best ways to create visually attractive solar systems. This is mine created with amazing PV Sol; A new-build housing development in the UK - instead of roofing with attractive expensive Cornish slate, the contractor wants to reduce their material costs by installing in-roof panels and experiment with how 'green' they could get. We were able show the contractor thier project in PV Sol by;Importing the site plan, altering the orientation and referencing elevation plans to recreate the neibourhood. Orange buildings highlight PV systems within public view, lighter buildings highlight PV systems with limited public view, grey buildings highlight properties outside consideration. The image went down so well it was reported the contractor specially printed this at poster size to show and tell to Prince Charles of Wales.
  2. 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.
  3. 2 points
    Hey there, It follows the order Inveter.MPPT.String.Module Hope that answers your question. Cheers!!
  4. 2 points
    For us, a fixed (or at least globally adjustable) colour scale for the shade frequency analysis would be very useful. So that e.g. 5% of shading has always the same colour for every roof in every project. As it is right now, 5% or even 10% of module shading might appear as a vibrant green, just because a part of the roof (maybe even with no modules) might be shaded very strongly. Not ideal at all. This, along with an option to export these pictures with one press of a button would be very useful to our workflow. As of right now we have to screengrab each and every roof. Edit: exmple picture added.
  5. 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)
  6. 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...
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 1 point
    Hi JoelB, would it be possible for you to send us the project file? That would make it a lot easier for us to identify the problem. You can send it to me via private message here in the forum. Thanks and kind regards, Martin
  12. 1 point
    This is a screenshot recording of the above residential development in Cornwall, UK. •90 x Candidate Properties •750 x SunPower Maxeon3 370W All Black panels in-roof •1,320m² total solar PV roof coverage •Annual Energy yield of 270,000kWh •Annual 〖CO〗_2 emissions avoided 163,000 kg •25 year Solar Panel warranty •12 year Inverter warranty •10 year Workmanship warranty Development 5.mp4
  13. 1 point
    I am not sure about diffused radiation model but it is a good pratice to activate minute values when DC/AC ratio is above 1,15 and with batteries. It almost takes forever for the simulation but still
  14. 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 lose a bit energy. How much you lose 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
  15. 1 point
    Hi Jordn, this is a very interesting project you are working on there! Thank you for sharing this. In general, the climate data used to simulate the PV system have the strongest influence on the symmetry of the results. Other influences can come from the models used to calculate the irradiance on the tilted plane and so forth, the synchronity of the sun's coordinates with the climate data and the like. I just checked this for some locations and climate data sources, and compared the orientations 90° (East) and 270° (West) with 180° (South), all at 30° inclination. Berlin with data from DWD: East brings 82,4 %, West 80,6 % Berlin with TMY data, also DWD, but different source: East brings 82,7 %, West 77,7 % Severn England, SAP 2012 dataset: East brings 82,6 %, West 81,9 % Newquay UK, interpolated in PV*SOL with Meteonorm 7.2: East brings 82,6 %, West 81,4 % So, in contrast to your results, we have a higher irradiation on the East facing systems. This seems strange to me, could you provide a project file, perhaps? You can also send it via private message. Which version of PV*SOL are you using? Kind regards, Martin
  16. 1 point
    Hallo Julian, um PV-Anlagen mit elektrischen Verbrauchern zu rechnen, musst du zunächst die Anlagenart umstellen: Und dann ist es mit dem Eigenverbrauch so, dass er sich aus dem Zusammenspiel zwischen Energieproduktion der PV-Anlage und dem Energieverbrauch der Verbraucher ergibt. Man kann ihn daher nicht einstellen, so dass er beispielsweise 25% beträgt. Wenn die PV-Anlage im Jahr z.B. 10000 kWh produziert, und man einen Verbrauch von 2500 kWh hat, wäre das ja bilanziell übers Jahr gesehen ein Verbrauchsanteil von 25%. Es ist aber nicht gesagt, dass die PV-Anlage zu jeder Zeit die Last decken kann. Die Gleichzeitigkeit und die Leistungs-Profile von PV und Last sind hierbei ausschlaggebend. Auch der Zeitschritt der Simulation hat einen erheblichen Einfluss auf den Eigenverbrauch. Am besten wählst du mal ein paar Lastprofile aus, mal in 1min, mal 15min und mal 1h-Auflösung und variierst den Jahres-Energieverbrauch und simulierst das dann. Du wirst sehen, wie sich in den Ergebnissen der Eigenverbrauch ändert. Wenn du mehr Unterstützung brauchst, sag Bescheid. Beste Grüße, Martin
  17. 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!
  18. 1 point
    Hello, I'm from Brazil, I'm having trouble opening 3D modeling
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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, 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 1 point
    Hi Remu, please correct me if I got your question wrong, but you don't have to calculate anything by hand if you want to place module mountings on flat roof tops. There is a dialog that helps you to get the inclination and orientation of the PV modules that you want: Then the program will determine the orientation to the mounting surface and enter the values accordingly: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  26. 1 point
    Dear stelpanel, I will translate your post using deepl.com: We will have a look into this, but please be aware that it might take a moment until we find the time to respond. Kind regards, Martin
  27. 1 point
    Hi Kamal, these kind of bends occur when you have unequal number of modules in your strings. The curve section from 0V to the point where the bend occurs is where the two strings both deliver a current for the given voltage. After the bend, up to the open circuit voltage of the longer string, only the longer string (with 21 modules) can deliver current, the other string is not contributing anymore. Kind regards, Martin
  28. 1 point
    Hi Karam, no, I would not say that connecting strings with different module numbers is a red line in general. Why not try it out in PV*SOL directly? We calculate the losses due to string mismatch with great accuracy, so you can just see how much energy you loose in you PV system and see for yourself if you can accept these losses. You can also see the resulting IV characteristics of your parallel strings in the results page (under Simulation -> Diagram Editor -> Type of Diaram: Characteristics) Kind regards, Martin
  29. 1 point
    Hallo GeromeK, vielen Dank für das Projekt. Für die anderen Leser fasse ich mal die Anlage-Konfiguration zusammen: In diesem Fall sind 14 Module mit SolarEdge P370 Powert-Optimizern auf einer Dachfläche (Nord-Ost) in Reihe geschaltet mit 10 Modulen auf der gegenüberliegenden Dachfläche (Süd-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 süd-westliche Dachfläche mit 1013 W/m² bestrahlt, während die im nordosten nur 75 W/m² abbekommt, da sie im Vollschatten liegt. Dadurch überlagern sich die Kennlinien der Power-Optimizern zu folgender Gesamt-Kennlinie, die der Wechselrichter sieht: Dunkelblaue Kurve: Strom-Spannungs-Kennlinie Hellblau: Leistung-Spannungs-Kennlinie Das Überlagern der Kennlinien läuft in einer Reihenschaltung ja so, dass sich die Spannungen addieren, während die Ströme 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 nordöstlichen Seite tragen kaum etwas bei. Daher sackt die Leistung knapp über 600 V auf der Gesamt-Kennlinie ab und der Wechselrichter sieht nur noch etwa 1000 W statt der eigentlich verfügbaren 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 zwangsläufig zu einer Ertragssteigerung in jeder beliebigen Anlagen-Konfiguration führt. Auch hier muss sehr genau (wie bei herkömmlichen Wechselrichtern auch) auf die Verschaltung geachtet werden. Daher wird auch von SolarEdge für 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 gewählt werden (die mit worldwide im Namen). Beste Grüße, Martin
  30. 1 point
    Hallo Fran, willkommen in unserem Forum Aufgeständerte Modulflächen können in PVSOL nicht verkabelt werden, dadurch kann die Verkabelung auch nicht in die Präsentation übernommen werden. Generell muss der Kabelplan manuell der Präsentation hinzugefügt werden (siehe Bild). Viele Grüße, Marcel
  31. 1 point
    Hallo Sigi, willkommen in unserem Forum Um wieder eine Dachfläche zu erhalten, muss das Dachgeschoss an die Gebäudemaße (Geschoss) angepasst werden. Dies kann man im Bearbeitungsdialog erreichen, dazu Rechtsklick auf das Gebäude und dann "Bearbeiten". Soweit dies noch nicht eingestellt ist, als Bearbeitungsmodus "komplex" auswählen. Anschließend "Dachgeschosse" auswählen. Abschließend die Dachverschiebungen entsprechend einstellen. Für die einheitliche Dachfläche sollte eine Verschiebung von 0,0 m das gewünschte Ergebnis erreichen. Viele Grüße, Marcel
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    Hallo Tim, wir hinterlegen keine Preise für Module oder Batteriespeicher oder andere Komponenten in der Datenbank. Grund dafür ist, dass jeder Projektierer oder Anlagenplaner mit Sicherheit unterschiedliche Preise bekommt, je nachdem, welche Volumen er bei welchem Großhändler abfragt, wo auf der Welt er sich befindet und wie der Markt dort gerade läuft. Die Stückkosten oder Gesamtkosten für die Anlage sind also individuell vom Planer in PV*SOL einzutragen, entweder als Einzelposten oder pauschal in €/kWp. Beste Grüße, Martin
  34. 1 point
    Dear PV*SOL users, we are proud to announce that we have published our new help pages now. You can find them here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/en/ We hope that you'll find them useful in the future, and we'd be glad to hear what you think of them. Thanks and kind regards, Your PV*SOL team
  35. 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
  36. 1 point
    Hallo Tim, ja man kann annhand der Monatswerte ein Lastprofil erstellen. Dazu am besten die Option "Lastprofil definieren" auswählen: Anschließend kann im neu geöffnetem Dialog der Verbraucher (wenn gewünscht auch mehrere) definiert werde. Dazu auf die Lampe klicken. Anschließend wird zum Verbraucher der entsprechende Jahresverbrauch angegeben. Zusätzlich muss noch das passende Lastprofil ausgewählt. Dies ist wichtig, da sich verschiedene Lastprofile stark unterscheiden können. Das Lastprofil kann unter "Verbrauchsprofile" definiert bzw. geladen werden. Im folgenden Dialag wird nun das Lastprofil definiert. Das Profil kann dort an die individuelle Situation angepasst werden. Unter "Laden" sind einige Lastprofile bereits vordefiniert. Im Reiter Jahresgang wird der monatliche Anteil am Jahresverbrauch definiert. Beträgt der Jahresverbrauch bspw. 100.000 kWh und der Verbrauch im Januar 10.000 kWh, so beträgt der Anteil vom Januar 10 % (10.000 kWh / 100.000 kWh). Genauere Informationen sind auch in unserer Hilfe zu finden: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/navigationsseiten/verbrauch/ Viele Grüße, Marcel.
  37. 1 point
    Hello Yvar, welcome to our forum! PV*SOL simulates on substring level of the PV modules so that the losses due to active bypass diodes are taken into account. Each substring will be checked whether there is a shadow in this substring or not. If there is a shadow, the bypass diode is active (curve 2 & curve 3), otherwise not. PV*SOL assumes from this that the shaded substring are never completely in shadow, but that there is always diffused radiation on the shaded parts (curve 2). There is therefore a I-V-curve with lower current for these cells as well. If the resultant MPP phase current is less than the short circuit current for the shaded cells, the bypass diode is not active and the complete module works with low current and high voltages. We therefore take these effects into account by working with yellow phase curve 2 when calculating the complete generator characteristic curve. I-V-curve (pretty old one, but it represents thematic well enough) Kind regards, Marcel
  38. 1 point
    Hi Mohi, just like Stuart said, the map section can be found in the dropdown menu of "New 3D system". If you don't see it there, check the software version you have. This feature was introduced with PV*SOL premium 2016 Release 1. Kind regards, Martin
  39. 1 point
    Hallo Alex, für die genaue Positionierung der Gebäude gibt es die Funktion "Abstände eingeben", erreichbar per Rechtsklick auf einem Gebäude. Dort lassen sich die Bezugsgebäude und -kanten wählen und dann die Abstände zueinander eingeben. Wenn man die Abstände auf 0 m setzt, liegen die Gebäude plan aneinander: Ich hoffe, das hilft! Beste Grüße, Martin
  40. 1 point
    Hi James, you can add a Plugin to SketchUp from the Extension Warehouse, which is called "SketchUp STL". With this plugin I was able to export a file to .stl and import this into PV Sol. Except for the area around the model (which should be fixed now) everything worked fine! Greetings Augustin
  41. 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
  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
    Dear Johan, This feature was added in version 2016 R1, so I am afraid that is not possible with your version of 7.5.4. Here you can see the full log of changes and new features that were added since version 7.5.4 (a lot, really ): http://www.valentin-software.com/en/support-service/customer-service/release-notes/pvsol-premium You could download the newest version (2017 R8), test it, and perhaps you might consider upgrading - or just go for a software maintenance which automatically provides you with all the updates. Kind regards, Martin
  44. 1 point
    Dear allan, for mounting systems it is not yet possible to create the cable plan in 3D. However, if you plan your mounting system in 3D and go back to 2D, you can enter your cable lengths and other details on the page "Cables" when you select the detailed option. In the info dialog at the bottom of the page you'll find a summary of all cables and other components. Hope that helps, let me know if you need any other assistance. Kind regards, Martin
  45. 1 point
    Is there any option for exporting cable plan or roof layout to dxf? I can export the cable schematic in this format but not the roof layout from 3d design For the cable plan there is the option to print to A4 but what's best way to more detailed output? Thanks
  46. 1 point
    Hi again, yes, all hor files use azimuth values from -180 to 180. It is kind of a standard, since horizon tools like the SunEye also use this definition. And you can have comments wherever you want, lines that don't contain a valid value pair are just ignored. When you think, PV*SOL Expert 6.0 had amazing abilities, we appreciate that, but you should really take a look at the new PV*SOL premium 2016 The Expert version 6.0 is three years old now, and we made huge improvements since then. See our changelogs and feature descriptions here: http://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/57/pvsol-premium You can also try the new versions for free. Kind regards, Martin
  47. 1 point
    hallo Tech-Support danke für die Antwort. Folgende Fragen noch: 1. Ist der Ordner, welcher in den "Benutzeroptionen" unter "Erweitert" gewählt werden kann mit „Nutzerverzeichnis“ grundsätzlich der Ordner „Autosave“? Ich ging davon aus, dass dies der Ordner für meine Projekte wäre? Wie ist das angedacht? 2. welche Rolle hat der Ordner „Projects“, welcher unter C:\Users\Documents\Valentin EnergieSoftware\PVSOL 2016" vorhanden ist, grundsätzlich aus eurer Sicht ? 3. Wie kann ich einen Standard-Auswahl-Ordner für "Projekte" grundsätzlich wählen, wenn ich Projekt-Dateien abspeichern will? Danke für eine Antwort.
  48. 1 point
    Dear Pastyl89, Please check your file. There are some entries in coulmn B, e.g. in row 5912. If you delete column B it will work. Best regards Your Technical Support
  49. 1 point
    Hallo Planer, Wenn Sie einen der vorhandenen Klimadatensätze aus Deutschland verwenden, dann beruhen diese auf Daten des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). Eigene (neu erstellte) Klimadatensätze und die Klimadaten für Standorte außerhalb Deutschlands basieren auf Meteonorm. Alternativ, können Sie auch auf PVGIS basierende Daten zurückgreifen. Die PVGIS Klimadaten können auf unserer Internetseite erzeugt und anschließend in MeteoSyn importiert werden: http://www.valentin-software.com/sales-service/weitere-klimadaten. Infos zur Verwendung von eigenen Klimadaten mit stündlicher Auflösung finden Sie in folgendem Forumsbeitrag. MfG Ihr Technischer Support
  50. 1 point
    Hello LKtech, since PV*SOL 6.0 (latest version is 7.5) the files have the extension .pvprj. They have a completely new structure and can therefore not be read from the old programs like your version 4.5. There is also no possibillity to convert the files. The other way round it is no problem. In the new program version you can import the old project files .prg. Best regards Your Technical Support
  • Create New...