RicardoM

Good morning everyone, I hope you're all holding out well working from home or whatever. I usually create my simulations over a Google Maps image cropped to just the space I need so I can zoom in to the maximum and thus have more details. Then every once in a while I have the problem that I simulate a system and then the customer asks me to move the modules to an area close by but which is just outside the simulating area. For example, I just simulated the system shown below and the customer asked to move all the modules on the green building to the empty area to the north: Is there anyway to expand the simulation surface so that I can take in the brown surface and not have to import a brand new image and start from scratch? Thanks in advance, cheers!

Great ideas all of them, specially the first 3. If I may add another, I'd like to not only have input to enter the exact line length, but also to enter the line relative angle, a bit like what can be done with buildings: That would be very helpful when you need to draw complex buildings and and make sure modules on different roofs are oriented similarly for configuration in the same MPPT. Please see below an example of a rather poor attempt I was working on recently: Keep up the good work and thanks for your timely replies!

Thanks Martin, What do you mean? Is it possible to preselect the modules which will go in a specific MPPT or just the ones which will go in a specific inverter? At the moment I use the "Select modules for configuration" option, but in certain roofs it is very time-consuming to select which modules go in which MPPT and how they are connected. Is there a way to simplify this? Kind regards, Ricardo

I also noticed that I can't draw the cable plan at all when it comes to mounted modules (as opposed to same-plane modules mentioned in my previous question): Am I perhaps missing something? I see most of the buttons are inactive: That is not the case with same-plane modules: Thanks again!

Good morning, I am trying to draw the cabling in Cable plan instead of dragging and dropping modules in Module configuration, which takes a lot more time. However, once I draw this (for practice purposes): I can only see this (modules cabled as they were before): If, on the other hand, I use the drag-and-drop method in Module configuration, I get a message that my cable plan will be deleted, but the new one is immediately implemented: Is there a way to do the process the other way around, that is, draw the cabling in Cable plans and then have it show in Module configuration? Also, does this have an effect in the simulation, for example for shading losses? Thanks in advance

Good morning, I need to simulate the following system, with PV powering both DC and AC loads and using batteries as well as a backup Diesel generator: The closest thing I can find in PV SOL is the stand-alone PV system with backup generator. Is there a way to add the DC/DC regulator, the bidirectional battery inverter and to differentiate the load types? Thanks in advance for your support, kind regards, Ricardo

Hi, I can't find the Trina modules whose datasheet I attach in the PV SOL database (models TSM-PE15H 340-355), why is that? Will the database be updated to reflect this or am I missing something? Thanks and regards, Ricardo TSM-PE15H 340-355_07.2019.pdf

Thanks, I'll try that.

Thanks Martin, So just to confirm, there is no way to configure 90 AC-300M/60S modules with the 20KTL inverter, then? This messes my planning a bit, as I took for granted that PV SOL was offering a feasible solution... Kind regards, Ricardo

UPDATE: I contacted Huawei and they confirmed that the proposed configuration will not work. Is there any other way that the mentioned modules and inverter can be configured together?

Good morning, I am considering the following configuration of 5 strings of 18 modules each with the 20KTL Huawei inverter and AC-300M/60S modules: That is, not the typical configuration of two identical strings per MPP, as the current would be too high: I understand that the first configuration is possible, but I'm not sure how the connection would be done in the "real world". Would it be a string per MPP input entrance, leaving the sixth unused? How would the inverter know I'm not following the second configuration, which is not allowed? Thanks in advance, kind regards, Ricardo