[Pvsyst Crack Version
Jamar Lizarraga
Hello, is there any way to revert back to a recent sub-version? For example from V7.2.12 to V7.2.11? I don't see the ability to download these sub-versions from the PVsyst website. Thanks in advance for the help.
You cannot have two patches of PVsyst 7.2 installed at the same time (note that you can have several versions of PVsyst installed in parallel on your computer like 7.2, 7.1, 7.0 and V6). But you can come back to a specific patch version by following this procedure:
Launching the same simulations of a PV plant (using the same parameters and the same Near Shadows scene, the shadings losses goes from -0.34% (in 7.3 version) to -3.41% (in the version 7.4). Could it be a possible bug? Is is possile to the new version overestimate this kind of losses? Near and far shadow losses factors change too but the value are similar this only happens with the shading electrical losses.
In version 7.3, the electrical shading losses were oftentimes underestimated. Now the partition model tends to overestimate irregular shadings, which is what it was originally intended to do. For irregular shadings (not just mutual shadings), you should use the fraction for electrical effect to mitigate this overestimation.
The following types of shading patterns were typically neglected in version 7.3, and are accounted for in version 7.4 (somewhat overestimated when they are irregular, i.e. not a long mutual shading like in screenshot #2). All of these shadings are due to the topography and should not be neglected, i.e. version 7.4 should be more accurate (albeit somewhat overestimated) than version 7.3.
Since these shadings are partly irregular you could consider a factor for electrical effect somewhere around 80-90% to mitigate the overestimations, but it will be very hard for us to give you aprecise value that fits the whole scene: there are many different shading instances on the scene.
I am seeing this same thing as well. Near Shading and Electrical losses jumped significantly between v7.3.4 and v7.4.0. @Michele Oliosi is there any other way to mitigate this besides adjusting the electrical effect factor? I already have the electrical effect factor at 70%.
Probably 7.3.4 was underestimating the losses in your case. I am not sure there's a solid reason to go back to a situation where the losses were underevaluated. But you can always reduce the shading factor further, even though we don't recommend it.
Hi, I also noticed the same thing after updating from v7.3.1 to v7.4.3. Very significant increase in the Electrical Loss acc. to strings for one of the 3D models I'm working on. If you're using topography, it's worth mentioning that you need to be very careful with your backtracking management too.
We haven't seen large changes in the electrical loss yet in our (admittedly limited) use of v. 7.4, which includes variants with significant terrain. Is it possible that the differences as great as 3% aren't attributable to the modified shading loss algorithms per se but to automatic selection of a different diffuse shading reference tracker when rerunning in the higher version? We definitely have seen elect. loss differences that great depending on the location of the reference tracker in an array.
The goal of the update is to better represent the actual behavior of these electrical effects: if one gradually shades the cells the are at the bottom of a module or submodule row, the electrical shading loss should quickly increase linearly until a plateau is reached (they are at their maximum value) once the full cell width is shaded.
A less common error affects projects using the unlimited orientations and half-cut modules in landscape. At the moment the bottom cell evaluation is incorrect for this case. We recommend using version 7.2.21 for this specific case.
Yes I believe it is due to this new calculation. The overhead poles and wires probably cause very little shadings overall. Some of these situations were neglected in version 7.2.21, and are not neglected in version 7.3.2 anymore.
I would suggest trying to change the advanced parameter controllling the cell width to 0, as in the screenshot above, and then making sure that the thin shading fraction is low enough. However depending on the original amount of shadings I believe the electrical shadings may increase even more. If you can let us know the results that would be very valuable.
If the discrepancies are too high, I would invite you to send us your project at sup...@pvsyst.com (exported via the main window > File > Export project), this is the best way for us to check in details on a case by case basis.
Until recently I've been working mostly with the 6.1.7 and 6.1.9 versions of PVsyst, but have upgraded to 6.2.2 to take advantage of the newer features (being able to specify PV fields in terms of number of modules in the 3D modelling view is particularly useful, also the resolution of the report-printout bug, thanks for that).
However, I'm experiencing quite serious slow-down when working on larger projects with the new version- this also applies to 6.2, which I tried a month back or so. Even viewing a tab such as 'System' or 'Horizon' and then returning to the main screen with 'cancel' (which shouldn't require any processing) causes a freeze of about 30s. This same slowdown occurs with smaller projects, although to a lesser extent.
*EDIT* It's possible what I'm seeing is caused by having created the project (along with a large 3d model) in an earlier version. A new project file I'm working on today isn't experiencing the same problem. Does this sound about right?
However, I still find the simulation process much slower in comparison to V6.19. I am working with very large Helios3D files. I should say that the "optimized shading calculation" helps to create the shading table much faster but when I move to the simulation, it feels like the PVsyst is running again a shading table calculation, which takes too long (5-6 hours for a project with around 1500 objects)
Thank you very much for your answer. Were you able to check if the simulation recalculates the shading table? I saw that you have a new update V6.26 and I read in the "Software Development", you have a development called "Big shading systems: optimized a time-consuming verification.". I didn't update my V2.25 but will the update make simulation with big shading scenes faster?
Does anyone else have the same problem with large shading scenes? I have uploaded a picture of where I am having difficulty. Shading table creation takes around 45 minutes, which is reasnable but "Hourly Simulation Progress" takes around 5-6 hours for a system size of 20MW with 10 central inverters. Shading scene includes around 2000 objects (module tables and trees).
One of the most substantial updates to PVcase this year introducing tracker exports to PVsyst and significant changes to both fixed-tilt and tracker table generation for a better layout design process.
Tracker export to PVsyst - for the past few months we've been working closely with PVsyst to develop a custom format between the two software which will allow to transfer tracker designs to PVsyst's near shading scene (version 7.0 and up) for yield estimation. This will also contain custom tracking parameters and information already preset inside PVcase.
From now on for fixed-tilt generation instead of only being be able to align tables left or right of an area you'll be able to draw a line for generation which will allow for an easier way to maximize your areas potential with ease.
And one more important point is the ability to generate tables from the bottom of an area. Based on the drawing direction of your line PVcase will generate tables either top to bottom or bottom to top.
Most likely the very first visible improvement is that the line for trackers can now also be multi-vertex which will allow to better handle changing boundaries for an area while still keeping rows aligned at parts of the area.
Adapt to terrain keep strings and devices - in order to save time when site grading is done for a project that already has electrical design we're allowing for electrical design to be kept after adapting tables to the new terrain.
Bill of materials interface overhaul - we're changing the way bill of materials looks and what information is displayed. The table will now show what information will be exported and also will show overview information for the entire project without needing to export.
Bill of materials export improvements - the excel export for bill of materials will now include general information and also the active layout information table along with counts for different tables.
In PVsyst software the process of importing Solargis values of irradiation and temperature is very easy and straight forward. PVsyst simulation engine runs the simulation taking into account global horizontal irradiation, diffuse horizontal irradiation and temperature (and wind speed if available).
PVsyst users can proceed in two complementary ways when importing Solargis hourly data. One option is using a Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) file, which summarizes weather conditions in one single year of hourly data. Other option is using a Time series file, from which several separated one year periods for specific years can be created in PVsyst weather database.
Time Zone. PVsyst most recent versions admit data importing in Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) time reference. When this is not the case, in Solargis we are also supporting older versions by providing csv files in Longitudinal Time Zone (LTZ) time reference, which is based on using longitudinal reference of the site as longitude/15 (rounded value). Please note that in many regions the time zone based on longitudinal reference will deviate from the legal time.
The clearness index. Some sites especially in tropical climate have a very high DIF or Clearness Index which are out of PVsyst internal default limits. Therefore, PVsyst will show these types of notifications:
795a8134c1