Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jimmy

  1. Hi Martin,


    As you describe it it sound like what's known in much of the 3D modelling world as a "decimate" function.




    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.


  2. 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? 



    • Like 1
  3. 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.

    • Thanks 1
  4. 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. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  5. 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. 

  6. 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.

  7. 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? 

  8. 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. 

  9. Hi Steven,

    Unfortunately there isn't an easy way as far as I know to model a building of this complexity in PV*SOL. The easiest way that most seem to use is to make a model in another software (like SketchUp) and import it into PV*SOL.

    There is a way to import models from Google Maps but it's very complex with mixed results and it also requires that you know how to use a 3d modelling software for cleanup of the imported model. As far as I know I'm the only one that does this and it's taken me about 3 months of evening hours to work out all the kinks to get it working to a satisfactory level with PV*SOL.

    • Thanks 1
  10. Hi Wouter,

    The "determine mounting surfaces automatically" function is in beta so I suspect that there can be any number of reasons. I don't use that function myself, I simply draw the mounting surface on imported models since I find it more reliable and precise. 

    Although I am wondering if the "plane tolerance" might have something to do with this. Maybe if you increased it it could work? But I'd just draw it manually since that should take about 10 seconds. 

  11. 4 hours ago, JesperE_Co2Pro said:

    Honestly I think it would be a good ide to remake the PV*SOL program. New Engine, HUD and interface.
    Maybe it could also be an idea to go into a cooperation with a CAD software maker to integrate there drawing engine/tool into PVSOL. Maybe something like SketchUP because it's fairly easy.

    Also large project takes a fair amount of ressources when calculating and it's nonsense that the program do not utilize more that one CPU core.

    I use PV*SOL Premium for my everyday job. 

    I have a profession degree in CAD, 3D drawing and product/process optimization, and I really think this would take PV*SOL to a entirely new height. 
    The calculations and options in the program is great, so I think you have something really good. It just seems outdated.

    Hi Jesper,

    I'm just an everyday user like yourself but I've been hanging out on this forum for a long time and have read a lot of posts by the developers.

    As I understand it they are in fact working on a complete re-design of the software, although it will probably take until the end of 2022 or later until we get to see it. And yeah, we all (including the developers) think that the software is outdated (just the fact that it's 32-bit says a lot) and that's because the core of the program was written in 1999 (I think).

    Even though it is outdated I still think that it's the best and most accurate software for most PV simulations. Some other softwares are more user friendly, look nicer or have fewer limitations when it comes to size and such things but when all things are considered together I still chose to buy this even though I've tried almost a dozen other softwares.

  12. Hi Trond!

    Just import a 3d model into the 3d design and tick the "use as terrain model" box.




    The issue then becomes to define mounting surfaces on the terrain. You can either draw mounting surfaces or have them automatically determined (beta). You can also tinker with the auto-settings to perhaps get better results.




    Hope that helps.

    • Thanks 1
  13. Hi Marin!


    Regarding your number 2, I imported a terrain model (I have no need for this myself at the moment, just wanted to try it) and got it to work kind of good in 10 minutes.






    I'm sure that someone else can make this much better than what I have done in this mock-up. Just wanted to show that it's possible to do and that it may be easier than step #2 if the environment is complex. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  14. So, I've been spending that last few days (more like weeks) tinkering with open source photogrammetry and 3d modelling software. I'm at the stage now where I'm able to import many city blocks at once but up until this hour I haven't been able to get the textures to work. Now when I finally got the textures to work it completely broke the model and all that remains is basically 4 broken buildings, before it was more like 400 and a huge hill with trees but without textures. 


    I'm no where near the vertex limit (managed to get it down to like 30k vertices with ok appearance) so my only conclusion is that that I somehow reached PV*SOL's cache or RAM limit (or something like that) when I added the textures.


    I'd like to know more about the limitations from the staff and other users so that I don't have to test it all to know where the limits are. Also, I see a lot .dll files in the PV*SOL folder that I don't think were there before... If I tinker with them and... break stuff... It should be fine to just uninstall and reinstall, right?

  15. No need to apologize Martin. I've dabbled a bit in programming myself so I have an idea of how many unforeseeable things there are that only show up after release.


    Concerning the parts list, must have been my mistake. Although it does seem a bit buggy to me with things like the mouse pointer changing for every pixel i move across the parts list. It might just be on my end though. 

    Concerning the map, I checked again today after a restart. The map loads well now, although I'm still having issues with the drop down menu for choosing the map provider.


    So, just to show you. Here's (a part of) the normal view.



    And here's what happens when I click on "switch map provider"




    Which looks fine until I try to mouse over different providers to switch to them, then it looks like this:




    I've managed to select Bing as a map provider once and then I wasn't able to switch back and had to restart to get Google satellite (which works best for me).

  • Create New...