Jump to content

Doubt - 3D cable data not being adopted?


Joao Prates
 Share

Recommended Posts

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):

image.png.717e36b12c6f26dce90ae6f8895c13b0.png

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, because I did system check, all was OK, chose "Adopt data" from main menu, only to find this at PVSOL cable section:

image.thumb.png.b0db05b8c27c72bc086abf3f6b1ca471.png  

Unless I'm missing some step or setting, it seems PVSOL is totally ignoring all the cable lengths and sections detailed in 3D Design, leading to default values and zero losses.

image.png.70c87c92f7c2e7af26ad2dd38230cebf.png

What did I do wrong?

 

TIA

-jprates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 boxes, different cable sections, strings combined into arrays, etc, it all disappears into ONE SINGLE magic number.

Just as @timgreen13 pointed out, one is expecting to see cable losses by section, see individual string lengths and losses, etc, because if not then what's the point of all that detailed "painting"?

 

We need to check if individual strings and individual arrays are above our own loss thresholds, to be able to correct them if necessary.

Having just one global loss number won't let you see that, you might even have 5% losses in one string branch and get 0,8% global losses in the system.

 

Again I'm in the position of having this powerful software (PVSOL) I paid for that won't do basic functionality, and having to go back to freeware manufacturer software (SUNNY DESIGN) to get some of the design steps done. After fine tuning the strings and cable sections on SUNNY DESIGN I will have to go back to PVSOL and try to input MPPT equivalents... can you see how cumbersome this is?

 

The more I work with PVSOL the more frustrated I get, really, it should be the opposite.

You guys do the most difficult part, the math simulations, to unimaginable precision (congrats on that!), and then fail at the most basic functionality and design elements.

Go figure...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
On 1/31/2020 at 4:23 PM, Joao Prates said:

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 boxes, different cable sections, strings combined into arrays, etc, it all disappears into ONE SINGLE magic number.

Just as @timgreen13 pointed out, one is expecting to see cable losses by section, see individual string lengths and losses, etc, because if not then what's the point of all that detailed "painting"?

 

We need to check if individual strings and individual arrays are above our own loss thresholds, to be able to correct them if necessary.

Having just one global loss number won't let you see that, you might even have 5% losses in one string branch and get 0,8% global losses in the system.

 

Again I'm in the position of having this powerful software (PVSOL) I paid for that won't do basic functionality, and having to go back to freeware manufacturer software (SUNNY DESIGN) to get some of the design steps done. After fine tuning the strings and cable sections on SUNNY DESIGN I will have to go back to PVSOL and try to input MPPT equivalents... can you see how cumbersome this is?

 

The more I work with PVSOL the more frustrated I get, really, it should be the opposite.

You guys do the most difficult part, the math simulations, to unimaginable precision (congrats on that!), and then fail at the most basic functionality and design elements.

Go figure...

 

I absolutely agree on the above. I thought I was doing something wrong. Leads me to think it is done by the developer on purpose. Please correct me if I'm wrong, explaining the problem behind it, otherwise I won't believe how such a simple function could not be implemented.

I wasn't even able to find a way to include DC cable lengths in the report.

Another simple thing that is missing is the ability to do cabling for mounted systems. 

Yes, PVSOL does the job, but beside the limited functionality it is full of consistent bugs, crashes quite often. I have redone few projects because it refused to reopen 3D visualization and crashed every time.

One can expect such things from a freeware, but that is not the case by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...