Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


developer_mh last won the day on January 21

developer_mh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

37 Excellent


About developer_mh

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,743 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. developer_mh


    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
  4. 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
  5. developer_mh

    Dirt on modules

    Hi Kenn, as Vishnu already mentioned, there are yearly or monthly soiling values that you can edit. Either you do this for all module areas at once, or you can edit these values per module area, if you enable the checkbox "Enter module areas individually". Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin @Vishnu: Thanks a lot for answering this question!
  6. Dear Joao, thank you for your feedback. I was not saying that I do not know what multitasking is, and I also do not need reprehension from your side. I was just saying that you already found a work-around to a problem that probably won't be fixed in the next releases. There are a lot of feature requests from customers, and yours will be handled with the same priority as all the others. We prioritize the features and bugs according to our rating system and plan the releases accordingly. Since we have a non-infinite amount of team members, we can't take care of all items. I am sure that this is understandable. If you don't like the software, you are free to give it back and your money will be refunded. We do our best to develop a software that helps people to design PV plants. If it doesn't meet your expectations in this intensity, I guess you will be better off giving it back. Kind regards, Martin
  7. Dear Joao, when the 3D visualisation is open, the DirectX component is used to render the scene constantly. This causes the CPU and GPU load. If you want to avoid PV*SOL using the CPU and GPU while being idle, just close the 3D environment, as you already found out. Kind regards, Martin
  8. Dear Luís, I would recommend to you to contact our sales team at sales@valentin-software.com. They can give you the most suitable information to those questions. Thanks and kind regards, Martin
  9. Dear Flavio, thank you for your log file. Unfortunately it doesn't contain any information related to your problem, so I guess the error occurs outside of PV*SOL. Do you have a firewall, that blocks certain URLs from being loaded, perhaps? Could you check if you can reach these URLs, please? https://www.openstreetmap.org http://www.bing.com/maps http://maps.google.com Also note that bing and google use the http protocol, not https, so perhaps this might be the reason. Perhaps your network is blocking http (without s) requests? Kind regards, Martin
  10. I hope not, since PV*SOL doesn't require administrator rights.
  11. 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
  12. Dear Flavio, could you send us your log files, please? You can find them under C:\ProgramData\Valentin EnergieSoftware\log Please send the file named "PVSOLpremium.log" via private message here in the forum, perhaps we can see something there. Kind regards, Martin
  13. side note: we recently overhauled our whole database eco system, and as a side effect we now have a website where you can see the current state of our database and what modules are available: https://pvsol-database.valentin-software.com/ Current list of Jinko modules for example: https://pvsol-database.valentin-software.com/Products?productType=PvModules&areUnavailableProductsVisible=False&selectedCompany=f13d5c09-e3c6-4980-8593-f748363117d0 These new databases will be connected to PV*SOL from the next major version on. Kind regards, Martin
  14. Hi Daniel, thank you for reporting these missing modules. In general, the manufacturers are responsible for entering their modules into our database, so we will inform them that there are modules missing. You can also write directly to our database team at database@valentin-software.com if you want to report missing products. Kind regards, Martin
  15. developer_mh

    PV Park

    Hello Jo, [this is a translated version of my German answer] I am aware that you are probably hoping for feedback from other planners, but here is my (preferably neutral) assessment of the topic of large PV plants in PV*SOL. In my answer I would like to distinguish between the 3D mode in PV*SOL and the non-3D mode (manual planning). In both cases there are detailed results on electrical and economic aspects of the system, configurable circuit diagrams and much more. 3D Mode + Very good visualization of the system (any module tables can be configured, surrounding shading objects, horizon line etc) + very powerful shading simulation (row-to-row shading, electrical influence of shadows down to module substring level) + Clear visualization and editing function for the electrical wiring + configuration/string plans - Limitation to 7500 modules (equals to about 2.3 MW at 300 W per module) - No cable diagram for mounted systems 2D mode + unlimited number of modules and module areas + shorter simulation times - No detailed calculation of shading (shading values can only be entered as a percentage, but the horizon line works) - Wiring is not as clearly displayed as in 3D So much for my pro/con list. I am curious what the other users say. As far as the limitation of the number of modules in 3D is concerned, a feasible work-around (which we know many users also use) would be to divide the system into several individual systems and then plan them separately. You can also use 3D planning to determine the reduction in yield due to shading using an example plant, and then transfer this as a percentage value into the 2D planning. I hope that this helps for the time being, best regards, Martin ps: PV*SOL is available free of charge for 30 days with a full range of functions for testing, so just give it a try
  • Create New...