Jump to content

Jimmy

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Jimmy last won the day on October 15

Jimmy had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

280 profile views

Jimmy's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare

Recent Badges

11

Reputation

  1. Thanks you so much Martin. I don't think that I will use the function as I feel more confident when I can check the mesh myself, I also get to keep all the "ears" that I want when I do it manually. Still, I appreciate you making the effort to provide an answer for me.
  2. Hi Martin, As you describe it it sound like what's known in much of the 3D modelling world as a "decimate" function. https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/generate/decimate.html Regarding the second and third part of my question. How much does it decimate (reduce the number of triangles)? Is it a percentage (like 50% or 10%) or a fixed value (like down to 10000 triangles)? Does this allow models that are larger than 500000 triangles to be imported into PV*SOL? I'm asking because I'm currently doing this (reducing the number of triangles) manually to my models before I import them into PV*SOL. And If I knew more precisely what the function does it could save me a lot of time since I wouldn't have to take those steps myself.
  3. I asked this in another thread but I'm guessing that it got buried so I'll make a new post instead. I'm wondering what the option does more than "reduce the number..." since that doesn't really tell me that much. Does it implement a decimate, flatten or smooth algoritm to the shading analysis that's not visible on the object (because I can't see any changes)? I'd like to know because if it does what I think it does it could affect my workflow. Also, does this option mean that PV*SOL can handle models that have more than 500000 vertices now?
  4. I found the original article: https://www.zsl.org/zsl-whipsnade-zoo/news/whipsnade-zoo-announces-plans-for-solar-lion 1MW in case anyone was wondering. No mention of PV*SOL for the provided picture but at least we know.
  5. Hi Martin, That's a curious fix as I don't understand how these things would interact, although there are a lot of things that I don't understand so I'll just accept that it's working for David. I have a question regarding that option (reduce the number of points) since I haven't seen it before now, I'm guessing that it was implemented around R3-5? Anyway. What does it do? Does it apply a smoothing, flattening or decimating algoritm on the object or something of the kind? Also, does this option enable you to import models that have over 500000 vertices and PV*SOL will automatically reduce the numbers when the option is applied to get it to work? If it decimates the model, by how much? All info you can give on it would be greatly appreciated as it might enable me to do less work in third party software to reduce the number of vertices on my imported models.
  6. Jimmy

    String order

    Hi Sondre. Yes. When you're in the "module configuration" view you're actually able to drag panels around. All panels are automatically numbered when you do the inverter config and they'll keep their number no matter where you move them. And the string go in order of panel number. Here's a screenshot of your desired result. An alternative method is in "cable plan" where you can use the "Sketch module cables" tool. Just select the tool and start at the first panel and draw the string going over each module in order. I prefer to move the panels in the module configuration view but I think both are equally valid.
  7. Well, he did say in his first post: "Recently, especially with the latest updates of the PV * SOL Premium software, strange things have happened to us with the shading of photovoltaic panels." So there seems to have been a previous version that worked for him. Now, maybe they didn't update to R7/8 from R6/7 but from R3 or R4. I just looked at you release notes while typing this and there seems to have been some changes with shading for half cell modules in R6. Although there are probably minor changes in every release that you don't type out. So maybe try to run the file in R5 to pinpoint when the issue occurred.
  8. May I also suggest the quick fix of rolling back to a previous version that worked for David if his shading issues persist?
  9. I made a mistake. I don't have the extended service agreement (which I realized after) and installed the R8 version. This replaced my R4, which was the last version that I could update to, as an R8 trial version. Which means that I went from a fully functional R4 to a trial R8 where I can't export the presentation. I had an old copy of an 2021 R1 setup so I installed that and it works but I'd like to have the R4 back since a lot was fixed from R1 to R4.
  10. Thanks Martin! I think I knew this at some point but forgot.
  11. This picture might easily explain what I want to do. I can't find the option (if there is one), like there is with regular buildings which have predetermined edges. And I can't figure out how PV*SOL determines which edge to orient after since I've tried reversing the order that I draw it in to try to find a work-around.
  12. So.... I just tried to draw a new mounting surface on the building instead and that resulted in PV*SOL deleting all the mounting surfaces (I was promted first) and removing all the 600+ panels that I had already placed...
  13. I have an imported model of 6 buildings that I'm designing an installation for and I've used the automatic function to determine mounting surfaces, which I don't usually do. It's worked good on the first 4 buildings but when I got to the fifth I noticed that the mounting surface isn't what I want. I don't want to try to re-determine the mounting surfaces in case that buggs something else. Or should I just try to draw a new surface on the roof?
  14. So, I downloaded your model and tried to automatically determine the mounting surface. The model was acting really strange when I tried to activate it and going to a side view instead of a top view. So I tried to tilt the model backwards to see if that made any difference and I was able to place the models on the "roof" (which was now the side of the building). I then removed the module array and tilted it back to its original position. So. I was able to automatically determine the mounting surface on the roof. The issue is that the mounting surface ends up being on the inside of the roof. Here are the panels on the roof, clipping through the roof from the inside and upside down. And here's a view from the inside of the building. I think that this can be fixed by making the model a solid or increasing the thickness of the roof but I don't know that because I can't get the model to work in Blender. Hope that helps you a bit.
×
×
  • Create New...