Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

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

  1. 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.
    4 points
  2. 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.
    3 points
  3. 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.
    3 points
  4. 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...
    3 points
  5. 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 ? 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
    2 points
  6. Hi Marin! Regarding your number 2, I imported a terrain model (I have no need for this myself at the moment, just wanted to try it) and got it to work kind of good in 10 minutes. I'm sure that someone else can make this much better than what I have done in this mock-up. Just wanted to show that it's possible to do and that it may be easier than step #2 if the environment is complex.
    2 points
  7. Never mind Martin. I accidentally used a broken 3D model when I finally got the textures to work. Here's a picture of Valentin Software HQ with some added solar panels to the building next door.
    2 points
  8. Hi there! What format you are using for your 3D model? Here is a document with a list of supported formats: https://www.valentin-software.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-downloads/sonstiges/en/3d-recherche-rev-01-en.pdf I have had the best results using .dae or .obj files in the past. However, I have found 3D models to be very unreliable (invisible walls that casting shade, module areas floating mid-air after saving the file etc.) so personally I try to avoid them when ever possible. Hope this helps. Regards, Frido
    2 points
  9. If anyone else have this problem, I fixed it by exporting the Blender model as an .obj file. Thank you.
    2 points
  10. To my knowledge, the system operator receives Ausfallvergütung only under special conditions, like when Einspeisevergütung or Direktvermarktung fails. Even then, the operator has to apply for Ausfallvergütung to receive the compensation. So these are very special cases and I don't think it's possible to calculate in PVSol
    2 points
  11. Main input parameter for this is "electricity tariff from grid" which one provides as input
    2 points
  12. Hi PVSOL team. I have had a quick play with the 2021 update. Are there any further features soon to arrive? I was really hoping for a few helpful features in the 3D modelling. As 90% of the time all that is required is a rectangular building outline with a line down the centre for a ridge some minor improvements would really help- -Snap to 90 degrees (or a rectangle drawing tool) -Snap to centre point for drawing ridge (or an "auto-ridge" feature) Thanks James
    2 points
  13. Hey there, It follows the order Inveter.MPPT.String.Module Hope that answers your question. Cheers!!
    2 points
  14. - 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)
    2 points
  15. 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/2020/calculation/ Here is also a link to the documentation of PVGIS: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/PVGIS/docs/methods Hope that helps, Martin
    2 points
  16. 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
    2 points
  17. 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
    2 points
  18. 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.
    2 points
  19. 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
    2 points
  20. 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/2018/calculation/pv-field/ ). Hope that helps, Martin
    2 points
  21. You can always start with a beginner tutorial for PV*Sol.
    1 point
  22. Hello Jordn, unfortunately without the missing parameters it will not be possible to simulate those products with PV*SOL. Did you try to get more elaborate information by contacting Victron directly? Best regards, Frederik
    1 point
  23. Wenn man das ganze Gebäude 0,5m tiefer macht, wird auch das Dach länger. Man erzeugt damit quasi einen für die Belegung nutzbaren Dachüberstand, nur ist er graphisch nicht als Überstand sichtbar.
    1 point
  24. 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!
    1 point
  25. Hello! I have created multiple files at different locations, all of which have one Module Area only. However, the results for the “Global Radiation at the Module” are different ones in the “Result per Module Area” section and in the “PV System Energy Balance”. Shouldn’t they be the same when there is only one Module Area? Can someone please explain the difference? FYI, the idea behind doing this is to compare the simulated irradiation vs. our own irradiation data. Cheers, Frido
    1 point
  26. Hello Santiago Fondoso, I assume you took the System A7 or A7.1. It is correct that it is the total number of selected tanks, but connected in parallel. On your drawing you connected all systems in a row. Kind regards
    1 point
  27. Hallo Lis, ja, das geht. Auf der Seite "Anlagenart, Klima und Netz", im Abschnitt Netz lässt sich die Einspeiseabregelung einstellen. Beste Grüße, Martin
    1 point
  28. Hallo Lis, die Wärmepumpenprofile wurden mit GeoT*SOL https://valentin-software.com/en/products/geotsol/ simuliert. Es handelt sich dabei mehr oder weniger um Beispielprofile, da es nicht möglich ist, einen bestimmten Anwendungsfall festzulegen. In PV*SOL ab Version 2021 kann man aber auch eine Luftwärmepumpe im neuen Anlagentyp Thermische Anlage simulieren. Dabei werden die Klimadaten des aktuellen Standorts verwendet. Das Lastprofil "Wohnkomplex" geht auf eine Forschungsarbeit aus der Schweiz zurück ("Warmwasserversorgungen heute; AT Verlag Aarau (Schweiz) 1984"). Von der Verwendung in wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten würden wir von diesem Profil abraten und eher auf die Lastprofile im oberen Bereich (aus Messwerten) verweisen. Beste Grüße, Martin
    1 point
  29. When you put in value, you need to enter coma but not the dot.
    1 point
  30. While answering your question and after some tinkering with some bifacial modules: Here are three projects with the same location and inverters and reasonably comparable modules (I attached the projects too): 1. South orientation, non bifacial 2. South orientation (same as first), bifacial 3. East-west orientation (90° inclination), bifacial Where bifacial modules clearly shine is the third project, bifacial east-west 90 degree inclination. Naturally this is one of the most interesting of applications: Agricultural PV systems, perfect due to the doubled area usage plus the flattening effect for system operators. south-nonbifacial.pvprj south-bifacial.pvprj east-west-bifacial.pvprj
    1 point
  31. I can across a similar challenge. This might be helpful -
    1 point
  32. 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
    1 point
  33. Would be nice to be able to Edit the name of the column headers on the parts list table
    1 point
  34. 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
    1 point
  35. 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
    1 point
  36. 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.
    1 point
  37. Hi there, the cabling plan ofr mounted systems is on our feature request list for a long time, and we know how much our customers want it. We are working on it, but at the moment, we can't give a date for the release. Regarding the initial question: For the shading simulation, it doesn't matter which module comes first, when they are all connected in series. In the fourth image on the bottom, the arrays (2.1.1.1 - 2.1.1.16) and (2.1.2.1 - 2.1.2.16) are electrically identical. This is also why the cabling order makes no difference in the module configuration view, compare image 1 and 2. At the moment not, I am afraid. But you can preselect the modules before configuring to make sure, the right modules are connected together. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
    1 point
  38. 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
    1 point
  39. 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
    1 point
  40. 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
    1 point
  41. Hello Damaris, in PV*SOL you can clip the maximum feed in power from the pv system. I would suggest to clip all the generated power at the feed in point. Kind regards, Marcel
    1 point
  42. 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
    1 point
  43. 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
    1 point
  44. 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
    1 point
  45. 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
    1 point
  46. Hi Johan, thanks for your question! You can just drag the orphan module next to your string. In fact, you can drag it anywhere you want. When you begin dragging, a colored frame will appear that you can move over a module of another string. In your case you might want to place it above 7.1.3.14 and left to 7.1.3.1, right? When you drop it there, it will be switched with the module that was there before. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
    1 point
  47. 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
    1 point
  48. 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
    1 point
  49. Hallo Herr Schäfer, Sie müssten Ihre Messung vorher in Excel vervielfältigen, sodass ein ganzes Jahr dabei herauskommt, also 365*24*60 = 525600 Werte, für jede Minute des Jahres ein Wert. Diese Werte sollten in der ersten Spalte stehen, von A1 bis A525600, ansonsten sollte sich nichts in der Excel-Datei befinden. Dann gehen Sie in Excel auf "Speichern unter" und wählen das csv oder txt Format aus. Damit werden die Werte in Textform gespeichert, die Sie dann in PV*SOL importieren können. Beim Import in PV*SOL (Seite Verbrauch -> Lastprofile importieren -> Neues Lastprofil importieren) können Sie dann auch angeben, in welcher Einheit Ihre Daten vorliegen und welches Dezimaltrennzeichen in der Datei auftaucht (dafür am besten die Datei mit dem Lastprofil in einem Texteditor öffnen und nachschauen, normalerweise sollte das in Deutschland das Komma sein). Hilft das weiter? Beste Grüße und ein schönes Wochenende!
    1 point
  50. Hallo Sebastian, die gewünschten Ergebnisse stehen in der Energiebilanz zur Verfügung. In der Präsentation können Sie die Ergebnisse der Teilgeneratoren derzeit leider nicht ausgeben. Sie haben allerdings die Möglichkeit, die entsprechende Tabelle in der Energiebilanz in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren und in z.B. Excel oder Word einzufügen. Ziehen Sie dazu, mit gedrückter linker Maustaste, über alle Einträge. Diese sind dann markiert und können durch anschließendes Klicken mit der rechten Maustaste in diesen Bereich in die Zwischenablage kopiert werden. Öffnen Sie nun Word, Excel, o.ä. und über "Einfügen" können Sie die Tabelle dann in diese Programme kopieren. MfG Ihr Support-Team
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...