How to Create a Layout in PVSyst | Explaining the Flow of Layout Settings in 6 Steps

Table of Contents

• What to understand first when creating a layout in PVSyst

• Step 1 Decide the arrangement method and finalize orientation conditions

• Step 2 Launch the 3D scene and build the foundation for the layout

• Step 3 Set table zones and pitch

• Step 4 Reflect obstacles and surrounding conditions to reproduce shadows

• Step 5 Ensure the system definition matches module placement

• Step 6 Verify consistency before simulation

• Common pitfalls in layout creation

• Summary

What to Understand First When Creating a Layout in PVSyst

Creating a layout in PVSyst does not mean only arranging PV surfaces on the screen. The workflow is to determine the basic arrangement conditions in the Orientation Settings screen, assemble the 3D scene in the Proximity Shading screen, define electrical connections in the Module Layout as needed, and finally link everything to the simulation. On the main Proximity Shading screen, when returning from the 3D editor, the software checks for consistency with the Orientation Settings and whether there is sufficient 3D area to place the modules required by the system. In other words, it is important to understand that the layout is not completed within a single screen, but is a core process that connects multiple settings without contradiction.

Also, a detailed 3D layout is not always required from the outset. When you are at a stage where you want to proceed with rough estimates assuming a regular row arrangement, using a simplified model based on the concept of an infinite row lets you perform initial studies that include mutual shading without creating a 3D scene. On the other hand, if the site shape is irregular or you want to examine the specific effects of roof geometry or surrounding obstacles, it is more appropriate to reproduce accurate geometry in a 3D scene. The first decision in layout creation is to determine how much geometric accuracy is needed and whether to start with a simplified model or begin with a detailed model from the start.

Step 1 Decide on the placement method and finalize the directional conditions

The first step is to decide how to define the power-generating surface. In PVSyst, the orientation settings start with a single fixed-tilt surface by default, and you can add multiple orientation conditions as needed. For a fixed-tilt surface, the tilt angle and azimuth are the primary parameters. For projects with multiple surface orientations, adding orientations in advance makes it easier to organize by orientation in subsequent 3D scenes and module layouts. Naming is not mandatory, but giving easily identifiable names helps prevent oversights in later stages.

When assuming a regular row arrangement such as ground-mounted, it is practical to first consider the infinite-row setting. In this setting you can input the number of rows, row spacing, receiver width, upper and lower inactive zones, and you can also check on the screen the GCR and the limiting angle at which mutual shading begins. It is suited to early stages when you want to get a feel for tilt angle and row spacing, and is effective for projects where you want to decide the layout direction quickly. In particular, at stages when detailed obstacle placement and terrain undulations have not yet been finalized, using this simplified setting to firm up the overall direction before moving to detailed placement reduces rework.

On the other hand, it is risky to treat the slopes and pitches produced by a simplified model as final values. The official documentation also states that the infinite array is a fast 2D approximation based on a regular row arrangement and is intended more for preliminary study. Therefore, if you want to evaluate clearances at building edges, height differences between roof surfaces, shadows from surrounding structures, or layout ratios on irregular sites, the natural workflow is to set the basic conditions in the orientation settings and then move into a 3D scene to materialize them. At the orientation stage, be mindful not to create a precise finished form but to prepare a framework that can later be translated into 3D.

Step 2: Launch the 3D scene and create the foundation for placement

When you've finalized the orientation settings, the next step is to open the 3D scene from the Near Shadows screen. The official tutorial also shows opening Construction/Perspective from Near Shadows and building the scene as the first basic operation. This 3D scene is not simply for visual representation; it defines the entire space with the relative positions of the power-generating surface and obstacles. PVSyst uses this geometric information to perform later shadow calculations and mutual shading evaluations, so the accuracy of the foundation you create here is directly tied to the final results.

The global space of the 3D scene is managed based on an orientation reference, and in Construction mode obstacles are displayed in black while the sensitivity areas of power-generating surfaces are displayed in blue. In the Create menu you can handle various fields of the power-generating surfaces, basic-shape objects, composite objects such as buildings, ground objects, and so on. In particular, the idea of grouping buildings and composite shapes into a single object makes them easier to organize in projects with complex roofs or many surrounding structures, and also lends itself to reuse. When launching a 3D scene, it is important to first roughly place the base that will host the power-generating surfaces and the objects that can cast shadows, and to avoid disrupting the overall coordinate relationships.

Also, calculating near shading strictly on an hourly basis would result in a very large computational load. For that reason, PVSyst precomputes a shading-factor table for solar elevation and azimuth, and during the simulation it performs fast calculations by interpolating that table. In other words, the 3D scene is not a picture for appearance but the fundamental data for the simulation itself. When building the first 3D scene, it is easier to proceed if, rather than aiming for perfection, you prioritize assembling it so that the relationships between row orientation, heights, and obstacle positions are not inconsistent.

Step 3 Set the table zone and pitch

Once the placement foundation is prepared, decide exactly where and how to arrange the power-generating surfaces. In PVSyst’s PV field basic parameters you can define orientation, number of tables, arrangement, table-to-table pitch, and so on. The important point here is that the tilt of the field itself is distinct from the orientation it will have when placed in the global scene. The official documentation also explains that the generation surfaces are defined as facing a fixed direction within their local coordinates, and the actual azimuth is determined when they are placed into the global scene. In other words, it’s less confusing if you consider an object’s properties and its placement position separately.

Additionally, table zones are useful when you want to reflect terrain and roof conditions. Zones can be drawn on the floor as rectangles, polygons, or free-draw shapes, and power-generating tables can be dynamically generated within them. When drawn on a roof, they are placed at the appropriate height, and you can enable automatic tilting to match underlying objects as needed. Using this mechanism, you can first define irregular deployable areas as surfaces and then proceed with the layout by filling those areas with tables, making it easier to check the overall fit before fine-tuning individual positions.

Representative items adjustable in zone settings include azimuth, row spacing, table spacing within the same row, the alignment method within rows, and ground clearance. In practice, among these, pitch and table spacing in particular affect both energy output and installation density. Tightening the pitch tends to increase area efficiency, but also tends to increase mutual shading effects. Conversely, widening the spacing too much reduces installed capacity. In PVSyst, viewing these relationships in conjunction with the GCR concept makes it easier to understand them not as mere cosmetic adjustments but as a balance between performance and site efficiency.

However, care is needed when interpreting GCR figures. According to the official documentation, GCR calculated from arrays within a 3D scene is determined from pitch and length, and does not include circulation spaces such as aisles between arrays. Furthermore, in irregular 3D scenes imported onto terrain, it is approximated from average distances, so in special layouts it may appear different from what you expect. Therefore, while GCR is a useful comparative metric, it is important not to judge the quality of an actual layout solely by it, without considering on-site traffic flow and maintenance spaces.

Step 4 Reproduce shadows reflecting obstacles and surrounding conditions

How surrounding conditions that cause shadows are modeled can dramatically affect the accuracy of layout creation. In PVSyst’s near-shading procedure, it is standard to construct a global scene that includes not only the generation surface but also buildings, trees, and various obstacles. If nearby structures cast actual shadows on the generation surface, they must be treated as near shadows within 3D space. On the other hand, there is a divide in thinking about treating sufficiently distant mountain ranges or horizon-like obstructions as horizon data. To improve layout accuracy, it is important to make this near/far distinction from the outset.

In the official documentation, distant shading is treated as a phenomenon that uniformly affects the entire power-generating surface, and generally objects located at distances of roughly ten times the size of the power-generating surface or greater are used as a guideline. By contrast, near-field shading is a phenomenon in which nearby objects cast visible shadows over part of the power-generating surface, and the shading factor is defined as the ratio of the shaded portion to the sensitivity region of the power-generating surface. Understanding this makes it easier to decide how far to model in detail in 3D and where to simplify. Especially for beginners, there is a tendency to try to model everything in 3D and thereby make the work heavy, but it is more practical to separate the roles of the models.

Also, when reproducing shadows, it is important not to stop at merely inputting the shapes. PVSyst includes features to render shadows and review daytime animations, allowing you to visually check shadow formation from the sun’s direction. Furthermore, as an official note, it is recommended not to place the power-generating surface and the supporting surface exactly coincident, but to arrange them with a slight gap. This avoids problems in polygon operations and reduces over- or under-estimation in shading determination. Being faithful to the site and translating that into a form that makes the calculations stable are separate matters, so you need to adopt the idea of creating a tiny clearance that prioritizes computational consistency over appearance.

Step 5 Align system definitions and module placements

Once the placement in 3D is settled, proceed to the Module Layout as needed. PVSyst's Module Layout is a feature for calculating electrical mismatch losses caused by shading in detail, and it assumes you will define where each module is located in the 3D scene and which string it is connected to. The official documentation also explains that this should be the final step to start only after both the 3D configuration and the system definition are sufficiently finalized. In other words, the true finishing of layout creation includes not only the visual placement but also ensuring consistency between placement and electrical connections.

Module Layout consists of two main stages: Mechanical and Electrical. In the Mechanical stage, modules defined by the system are assigned to the table in the 3D scene. On this screen you can adjust placement conditions such as module spacing, the method of filling the table, and whether modules are placed vertically or horizontally; if necessary, you can add rows or columns or remove some modules to match quantities. Additionally, a match function is provided to ultimately align the table shape with the module outline. Skipping these steps can leave the 3D scene appearing correct while not matching the system definition, reducing the reliability of the results.

In Electrical, you define which string each module is assigned to. This allows you to evaluate how partial shading, not just simple area shading, leads to electrical losses. In addition, the Shadings 3D and I/V curves screens let you check how shading occurs for specific inputs and the behavior of the I/V curve, but these are auxiliary features that aid understanding and verification rather than being essential to the definitions themselves. Therefore, in practice it is easiest to first finalize the definitions in Mechanical and Electrical, and then review animations and curve displays to see if anything looks off.

Step 6: Verify consistency before simulation

The final step is a consistency check before running the simulation. In PVSyst’s near-shading dialog, when closing the 3D scene you should verify that the orientation of the 3D field matches the orientation settings and that there is a sufficient and reasonable area to place the modules defined in the system. Furthermore, the official guidance recommends starting from the simplest configuration, saving it, and then adding complexity one step at a time. This is not advice only for beginners; it is a highly effective way to reduce rework in professional practice as well.

The reason this check is important is that in the simulation a shading coefficient table is generated from the 3D geometry, and the losses at each time are evaluated by interpolating that table. If a small inconsistency remains in the azimuth, pitch, obstacle positions, or module assignment, that inconsistency will propagate unchanged into a year’s worth of results. Conversely, if you perform a final check of the layout logic before the simulation, isolating the cause after reviewing the results becomes overwhelmingly easier. The success of the layout creation is determined not by the immediate satisfaction after input, but by whether you are in a position to know what to suspect when the results feel off.

What practitioners should keep in mind during the final check is the following sequence: whether the orientation names and directions match the 3D layout, whether the pitch and table spacing in the zone settings align with the intended installation density, whether obstacles are appropriately separated into distant shading and near-field shadows, and, if necessary, whether quantities and connections in the Module Layout are consistent. PVSyst offers many advanced settings on individual screens, but it becomes hard to manage if overall consistency breaks down. That is why it is important to review it at the end not screen by screen, but as a single model.

Common Pitfalls in Layout Creation

A common mistake in layout creation is using simplified models and detailed models with the same mindset. The infinite-row approximation assumes a regular row arrangement and is a fast estimate that is convenient for initial comparisons, but it is not suitable for directly representing irregular sites or complex obstacle conditions. Conversely, if you move into a detailed 3D model too early while you are still in the comparative-evaluation stage, you will not gain proportionally more material for decision-making relative to the time spent, and each change will incur substantial rework. In other words, the most accurate method is not always the correct one; choosing a level of granularity appropriate to the design stage is the first step to avoiding failure.

The second is evaluating pitch and GCR purely by numbers. PVSyst’s GCR is a useful comparative indicator, but in 3D layouts it does not include pathways between arrays, and in irregular layouts imported onto terrain it can become an approximate estimate. Therefore you cannot simply say that a high GCR is bad or a low GCR is good. In practice, if you do not consider energy yield, installed capacity, maintenance access routes, and separation from surrounding obstacles together, you will make incorrect layout decisions in the real world. You should keep in mind that the software’s density metric is not completely synonymous with on-site constructability.

The third issue is moving on to the Module Layout before the system definition has been finalized. According to the official documentation, the Module Layout is the final step, handled after 3D placement and the system definition have been established. If orientation conditions or subarray configuration are changed later, the module placement and string assignments must be revisited. Moreover, for large projects the detailed calculations for Module Layout increase computation time, triggering warnings for projects exceeding 1 MWp and errors for projects exceeding 5 MWp. For large projects the official guidance is to perform detailed evaluation on representative subsystems and apply a lighter approach to the overall project. Being able to create detailed designs and having to create them in detail from the start are not the same thing.

The fourth is underestimating the effects of thin shadows and slender obstacles. The official documentation notes that Module Layout can underestimate the effects of thin shadows, and in such cases it recommends using an alternative segmentation model. Also, since making the power-generating surface and the support surface fully flush can make geometric calculations unstable, providing a small gap is also recommended. These cautions tend to be handled intuitively by those who have used the software for a long time, but they are important for improving the reproducibility of layouts. Rather than focusing on making things look neat, translating the input into forms that keep calculations stable supports the accuracy of the results.

Summary

Creating a layout in PVSyst is easier to organize if you proceed in a sequence: decide the orientation conditions, create the space in the 3D scene, refine the placement using zones and tables, reflect obstacles, define module connections as needed, and finally check consistency. The important point is not to enter every detail from the start, but to maintain overall model consistency by distinguishing which parts can be simplified and which should be detailed. Rather than treating PVSyst as a tool for drawing neat layouts, its true strength becomes apparent when it is used as a practical tool to correctly connect placement conditions to the power-generation simulation.

And no matter how carefully you create a layout on the desk, if the underlying on-site information is coarse there are limits to placement accuracy. If you want to quickly capture site shape, obstacle locations, elevation differences, and photo records in a form as close to the field as possible, leveraging an iPhone‑mounted high‑precision GNSS positioning device like LRTK makes it easier to link coordinate acquisition, geotagged photos, and point cloud capture into a single workflow. By connecting layout studies in PVSyst with high‑precision on-site positional data, you can further improve the reproducibility of designs and the ability to explain them.

lefixea.com