developer_mh

Hi all, just an info for the other users. Using power optimizers in the configuration and the cabling plan in 3D, can lead to the problem that projects can't be loaded in 3D anymore, for some customers at least. We are looking into it, but please be aware of the problem in the meantime. Sorry for the inconvenience, kind regards, Martin

Hallo Anton, Projektdateien aus der aktuellen Programmlinie (2020) lassen sich nicht mit der Vorgängerversion öffnen, das ist immer so. Leider hatten wir vor dem R3 die Beschränkung der Dateiversion nicht scharf geschaltet, weswegen Projekte von 2020 R2 und R1 noch in 2019 geöffnet werden konnten, nur eben nicht sinnvoll. Unter der Haube hat sich so viel verändert, gerade auch beim Laden und Speichern, dass es rein technisch nur mit einigem Aufwand möglich ist (wenn überhaupt, da bin ich mir gar nicht sicher), die neuen Projekte zurückzuwandeln. Was bei ein Das Problem lässt sich also nur lösen, wenn alle mit der gleichen Programmlinie, also ab PV*SOL premium 2020 R3 arbeiten. Beste Grüße, Martin

Dear Ragy, could you provide a screenshot please, where you are missing the "Add" button? And also a screenshot on where the "l" of "symbol" is missing. This would be very helpful, thanks a lot in advance. Kind regards, Martin

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

Hi Jordn, this should be possible in Photoplan. 1) Load the picture in Photoplan an set the two red lines to vertical edges of the house. 2) With the "Add geometry 3D" tool, draw a rectangular area onto the roof, so that the 3D plane (in yellow, it appears when you drag the corners of the rectangular) matches the roof 3) Then, with the "Solar Area" tool, draw a trapezoid along the edges of the roof, select the PV module (only for graphical purposes), and you see the modules placed on the roof: 4) Then choose the "Detach element" tool and draw polygons around the chimney and the power line, so that they appear in front of the PV array afterwards: 5) Then, as a result, you get this: So this is only a fast sketch, with more accuracy you will get better results. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi SunLord, hi Bene-Solar, thank you for the input, we will put these suggestions on our feature list. Kind regards, Martin

Hallo David, der Weg über GeoT*SOL ist leider momentan der einzige - mit dem bekannten Nachteil, dass die Wärmepumpe nicht auf das PV-Dargebot reagieren kann. Wir planen aber, in Zukunft auch Wärmepumpen direkt in PV*SOL simulieren zu können. Wann genau das kommen wird, ist aber noch nicht klar. Viele Grüße, Martin

Hey Martti, it seems that your graphic card isn't powerful enough to run our software. Are you running it in a virtual machine of any kind? Could you send us a dxdiag of the system where PV*SOL is running? Hit the "Windows" key, type "dxdiag", wait for the loading bar to finish and the click "Save All Information". You can send the file via private message. Thanks and kind regards, Martin

Hi Vishnu, hi Joey, see also the link to our help pages on power optimizers here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2020/calculation/power-optimizer/ They have different operation modes (full, buck and sbustring buck) with their most common representatives SolarEdge (full), Tigo (substring) and Maxim (substring buck, module integrated). Power optimizers in full mode, ie. SolarEdge devices, can ouput a variable voltage and a variable current, while their product V_out*I_out is always equal to the maximum power of the module P_MPP (minus the conversion losses). This is why we get this hyperbolic shape of the characteristics (orange curve in the images on the help pages). This is what they do, they take the optimal power of the module, and offer it to the external system, independent of the voltage or the current of the string. So, in theory, the advantage of power optimizers is clear. You can connect any modules together, regardless of their orientation, shading and so on, and you will always receive the optimum power output. In real systems however, where you normally connect PV modules of the same type, same orientation and so on, the situations where you gain energy through the use of power optimizers are more rare, and you have to compete against the constant conversion losses of the devices. The situation mentioned above (two or more strings in parallel, with uneven shadow) is where power optimizers perform best, but of course there are other configurations one could think of. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Joey, thank you for the project. And sorry for the late reply, we really have a lot to do at the moment. In your post there are several questions at once, so I will try to answer them separately. 1) If you have total (direct) shadow on a module array, like in your first image, you will still have diffuse irradiation on the module surface, so you'll also see the PV system producing energy in these moments. In order to see the diffuse/anisotropic irradiation values in the results, activate them under Options -> Simulation -> Enhanced Simulation Results 2) If the modules of one MPP tracker receive full (global) irradiation, while the other modules are partially shaded, you will see differences in the power output of the two trackers. I guess this is what you wanted too illustrate with images 2 and 3. The difference however is dependent on the ratio between direct and diffuse irradation at given moment in time. The more direct irradiation you have, the higher the difference. Read more about radiation and how it is processed here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2020/calculation/irradiation/ 3) Power optimizers are another topic. As Vishnu pointed out, their advantage (in terms of "more energy output of the PV system") isn't always easy to identify. It really depends a lot on the shading, the string configuration and DC/DC losses of the optimizers etc. If a system receives full (direct) shadow, power optimizers can do nothing, you will even see less power output due to their DC/DC conversion losses. Same applies for situations without shadow (and, to be honest, for most other situations with partial shading as well). In the past, we did a study to identify situations where power optimizers can really lead to more power output, you can have a look here (in German, but with a lot of pictures: https://www.valentin-software.com/sites/default/files/leistungsoptimiererlangfassung.pdf) The main point is: You really make use of the power optimizing technology if you have strings in parallel that receive uneven shadow. Hope that helps to clarify the matter a bit. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Kind regards, Martin

Dear Joey, could you send us the project file, please? It is then easier for us to analyse your question. You can send it via private message (it is best if you save it without iv curves or results, so the file isn't too large) Thanks a lot in advance, kind regards, Martin

Dear Jacek W, this is a known bug (regression) from 2020 R2, and will be addressed in the upcoming R3 release. We will release it in the next few days. Sorry for the inconvenience that might have caused. Kind regards, Martin

Hallo Ralf, die Kosten können auf der Wirtschaftlichkeitsseite unter "Bearbeiten" eingetragen werden. https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2020/navigationsseiten/wirtschaftlichkeit/ Viele Grüße, Martin

Hi Joao, thank you for notifying us of that issue. I will put it on our bug list. Could you provide the sample project, please? If you want, you can send it via private message here in the forum. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Joao, please see this thread for an answer to your question: In short: At the moment, you can only plan the cables either in 3D or on the cabling page of non-3D-side of PV*SOL (the one you shared screenshots of). If you plan the cables in 3D, their specific values can't be adopted into the cabling page, only the total loss, as stated in the thread above. We have this feature on our list, but at the moment we can't give a date for its release. Kind regards, Martin

Keine Ursache, und vielen Dank fürs Kompliment

Hallo Anton, ja, da gibt es einen technischen Hintergrund. Bei DC-Systemen wird der Batteriespeicher ja DC-seitig an die PV-Anlage gekoppelt. Die Performance Ratio bezieht sich auf die AC-Ausgangsleistung des PV-Wechselrichters. Das bedeutet, dass die Batterie-Verluste und evtl die DC/DC-Wandlerverluste des Ladereglers die AC-Ausgangsleistung desPV-Systems verringern. Und das führt zu den niedrigeren PR-Werten. Uns ist bewusst, dass dies ein etwas unglücklicher Zustand ist, da die PR bisher dazu verwendet wurde, um eine Vergleichbarkeit der PV-System-Güte zu haben. Mit Batterie-Systemen, vor allem DC-gekoppelten, ist diese Vergleichbarkeit nun nicht mehr gegebenen. Wir haben aber auch schon Ideen, wie wir das in Zukunft besser darstellen, bzw. in den Ergebnissen kommunizieren können. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Dominik, the upper diagram is shown when you select Net-Metering as tarif model, on the economy page. The diagram at the bottom is shown when you select "Surplus Feed-In" (Überschusseinspeisung). Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Dear Remu, yes, you can import climate or weather data into PV*SOL via its meteo module Meteosyn (which integrates Meteonorm). See the data format description here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2020/pages/system-type-climate-and-grid/meteosyn/#options The reason why climate data from 1991 - 2010 is used in Meteonorm is that 1) you always want to use long-term climate data to realistically represent the location's weather "behaviour" over a long period of time, not just e.g. the last five years and 2) at the moment there is no climate data with a more recent period of time in Meteonorm 7.2. For some countries, there is data from 1996-2015, but not for the Netherlands. See also the difference between weather and climate data, and TMY here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2020/calculation/irradiation/climate-data/#what-are-climate-data-sets-what-does-typical-mean-year-mean In PVGIS, you get satellite derived climate data in good quality for 10 years time periods (not as secure as 20 years, but ok), also for the Netherlands. This is what I would recommend to you at the moment, as long as Meteonorm has no more recent data. But also keep in mind, that for PV simulation and the reliability of the simulation results, more recent doesn't forcibly mean better. All the best, kind regards, Martin

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

Hi Joao, I just verified again that in our test environments the 3D horizon function works as expected. Could you please provide an examplary project where this error occurs? You send it via private message here. Please be aware that it might take us a while to reproduce the issue. Most likely we won't be able to provide an answer before Monday. Kind regards, Martin

Dear Luís, did you try to select SolarEdge as company in the list above the model selection? Kind regards, Martin

?

Hi Joao, yes, this is normal. Only Bugfix/Smaller releases inside one major family replace the preceding installation. For example PV*SOL premium 2020 R4 will replace 2020 R3, but 2020 R1 will not replace 2019 R14 or any other version before it. This is intended behaviour, as some customers still want to use their old version for a while, and only switch slowly step by step. If you don't want 2019 on your machine, it is safe to uninstall it. Kind regards, Martin

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