Jump to content

Joao Prates

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Joao Prates last won the day on February 3

Joao Prates had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About Joao Prates

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi all, I'm designing a system with 2 inverters and one large battery, one of the inverters being a Fronius SYMO GEN24 10.0 Plus. The battery is connected to the GEN24 inverter, and the 2nd inverter is only acting as an extra AC power generator (AC coupling) to the main AC bus. One of the innovative features of the Fronius GEN24 is its ability to act both as a DC coupling (energy source is PV) and AC coupling (AC bus is source) simultaneously. This is key to our design, as the second inverter will provide for extra power to be injected into the battery, adding
  2. Sure, anything I can do to help you improve the software you can count on it. I'm not here just to point out errors, I will do my best to help you solve them. Just note that the project will show correct naming already, as I've spent many hours fighting with it till I got all nodes correctly named and saved. Check your inbox in 5 minutes time.
  3. 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 b
  4. Hi, I wonder if someone could explain this, meaning pointing out where did I go wrong, because this can't be default/desired behaviour and most probably I'm the one at fault: A complete system design was done in 3D, including cabling, which gave me these lengths and losses (as seen inside 3D module): As a side note, I don't understand what is AC losses value doing there, since I could find no way to detail AC cabling inside the 3D Design.. can anyone care to let me know where is it? The main issue of this post is to ask the community where did I go wrong, becaus
  5. Hi, Yes, I know, you're working on a new 3D module that won't be ready for 18 months... Yes, I know, you're not planning to introduce new features or even correct bugs on current 3D... However... I really think a line should be drawn somewhere, because as it stands some 3D features are just about useless and desperating if we try to use them. I'm trying to use 3D "Cable Plan" feature and it's really driving me nuts, the object/node tree refresh is almost never happening, no matter how many times we rename a node. One gets things like this: Obvio
  6. Hi, Submiting a New Feature Request for the PV*SOL dev team: Currently module degradation inputs are only 2 fields, one for the age and the other for the remaining power: Most modules we work today though offer a warranty with linear degradation AFTER FIRST YEAR, meaning the value for the 1st year is always different (and higher) than average. For example we have this module as many others on the market: In order to support this, we need another field to enter the first year degradation (0,3% in the above example), and the other fields could sti
  7. Judging by your test case it would seem to be a problem related to some change in the way the project is being saved on 2020R2 vs 2019R14. This project was originally created on 2019R14, hence my suggestion. Next week will be fine, don't worry, this is not a blocking issue at this stage. Thanks for the quick feedback. EDIT: Tried your suggestion of removing and adding back the horizon and it worked. You can change the priority of this bug to "minor" as far as I'm concerned.
  8. It's friday and we can wait for monday, no problem. I'll try to send it via pm as requested.
  9. Hi, I think I may have found a bug on the presentation report. Using the 3D design module I have loaded this realistic horizon into the project: When generating the report back on the main program window, this is what gets generated: Now apart from the obvious error of not using the 3D horizon, I am left with the more important doubt about the yield results, since obviously the correct horizon has impact on the determined values and I wonder which of horizons was used, if the 3D real horizon or the flat one from the report. Can you please investigate a
  10. Errr... guys just one question... is this normal? I was assuming that by accepting the 2020 setup I was asking for an upgrade, not an extra install... Just realized after calling PVSOL that the old 2019 version was still being called and executed, it was not uninstalled at all. Shouldn't the 2020 setup uninstall the 2019 prior to installing itself? What now? Is it safe to uninstall the 2019 version, or will this currupt and/or delete registry keys used by 2020 and I should reinstall 2020 once again after uninstalling 2019? Argh... what a mess... not the best way t
  11. Glad to know about the fix, thanks. About the map API, without being much of a priority comparing to other issues, it would be nice to have it reviewed or to use other tool. Right now for a couple of projects of mine I had to take a google maps print screen at a more appropriate scale and then manually enter the scale on PVSOL. This quite defeats the purpose of this feature having the maps right there.
  12. Yes, please do put QA over any release rush! Can't wait to take it out for a spin though... ☺️
  13. Hi, PV*SOL premium 2019 (R14) When creating a new 3D system from a map, the rotating tool arrows on the small tool box ribbon do not work, neither of them, Rotate Left or Rotate Right. The zoom level on the other hand is quite aggressive, it would be nice to have at least the double number of steps while zooming in and out. Video demonstration: Don't know if this goes on time for the new release next week, but it would be nice to see it, even if on a patch level build afterwards. Cheers, -jprates
  14. Thanks for the feedback, I truly appreciate it. Agree that as a design and general analysis tool PVSOL is probably one of the best out there, if not the best, no contest there. I think we need to distinguish 2 situations here: One is about requests for new features which to me seem basic and should have been there since ever (example full cabling systems) and another quite different is bug fixing to let existing features work as designed/advertised by Valentin Software. I’m resigned with waiting 1.5 years for a proper 3D module, and basic missing features missing like
×
×
  • Create New...