How to Create a PVsyst Report | 6 Items to Check Before Submission

When using PVsyst to assess the power generation of a solar photovoltaic installation, the final important step is to organize the calculation results into a form that can be presented as submission material. Even if you can review the simulation results on-screen, if the assumptions, decision-making data, loss factors, and points of caution that the recipient wants to know are not all provided, it is likely to lead to requests for rechecks or resubmissions.

Especially for practitioners researching "how to use PVsyst," it is important not only to know the operating procedures but also which conditions to enter, which results to look at, and which parts require supplementary explanation. In PVsyst, you can run simulations based on conditions such as meteorological data, system design, shading, and losses, and review the results and reports. However, the figures displayed in the reports are influenced by the assumptions you entered.

This article summarizes the basic approach to creating and reviewing reports in PVsyst and organizes six items you should check before submission from a practical standpoint. Since screen names and output formats may differ depending on version and settings, the explanation here focuses on pre-submission checks and does not depend on specific button operations.

Table of Contents

• In creating PVsyst reports, what matters is not just the calculation results

• Organize input conditions before preparing the report

• Checklist item 1 before submission: Project information and system conditions

• Checklist item 2 before submission: Meteorological data and installation conditions

• Checklist item 3 before submission: Presentation of energy production and losses

• Checklist item 4 before submission: Shading effects and layout conditions

• Checklist item 5 before submission: Numerical consistency and ease of explanation

• Checklist item 6 before submission: Readability as submission material

• Practical approach to reduce rework in PVsyst reports

• Summary: After preparing the report, also confirm the connection with site information

What matters in PVsyst report creation is not just the calculation results

When people think of preparing a PVsyst report, they tend to imagine the task of producing annual and monthly energy output figures. However, the reports required in practice are not documents that simply list numbers. What the recipient wants to verify is under which assumptions those figures were calculated, which conditions affect the energy production, and which losses are being assumed.

A PVsyst report is a document used to explain the results of a simulation. In photovoltaic systems, even with the same installed capacity, results vary depending on the installation site, weather data, orientation, tilt angle, module configuration, configuration of power conversion equipment, shading, and loss conditions. Therefore, rather than judging the output as "high" or "low" based only on the reported energy production, it is necessary to verify the connection between the conditions and the results.

In PVsyst, after setting the necessary conditions and running the simulation, you review the key results on the result screens and in the report. When using the output for submission, simply attaching the report may be sufficient in some cases, but depending on the project’s purpose, it can be clearer to include an overview document or supplementary explanations. In particular, the items emphasized vary depending on the reader’s role—such as the client, internal approvers, financial institutions, and design personnel.

When read by designers, emphasis is placed on the number of modules, series count, parallel count, the combination with power conversion equipment, and the validity of loss settings. When read by clients or approvers, it is important that the annual generation, monthly generation, the main assumptions, and the rationale for shading and losses are easy to understand. When read by personnel involved in construction or site management, it becomes easier to verify whether the layout conditions, surrounding obstacles, on-site constraints, and simulation conditions are consistent.

Also, when preparing reports, both "calculating under the correct conditions" and "conveying information without causing misunderstandings" are necessary. Even if the energy generation is lower than expected, if shading, temperature, layout, and loss conditions are clearly specified, it becomes easier to provide a reasonable explanation. Conversely, even if the energy generation appears high, if on-site shading, soiling, or system configuration constraints are not adequately reflected, a recalculation may be required later.

When learning how to use PVsyst, it is important not only to execute calculations on the operation screen but also to understand how to read the reports and the pre-submission verification procedures. The completeness of the report affects not only the reliability of the simulation results but also the ease of explaining them both inside and outside the company. By deciding in advance which items to check before submission, you can prevent oversights and produce materials that are easier to use for decision-making.

Organize input conditions before preparing the report

Before creating a report in PVsyst, the first thing you should do is organize the input conditions. The quality of the report depends far more on the accuracy of the input assumptions than on the act of generating the output. Even if the document is well formatted, any errors in the project name, installation location, system capacity, number of modules, azimuth, tilt angle, loss conditions, or similar details will reduce the credibility of the submission.

First, what you should confirm are the basic project details. The project name, location, installation type, study stage, creation date, author, and the names of simulation scenarios are the information recipients of the report will see first. For projects comparing multiple scenarios, use names that indicate differences in orientation, capacity, or layout so it’s less likely to cause confusion when reviewing the materials later.

Next, check the installation conditions. In photovoltaic systems, azimuth and tilt angle influence generation patterns. For roof-mounted systems, verify the azimuth and slope of each roof surface; for ground-mounted systems, verify the orientation of the racking, row spacing, and installation angle. It is important to confirm that the settings in PVsyst match the design drawings, layout plans, survey results, and on-site photos.

Checking the equipment configuration is also essential. The number of PV modules, the number of modules in series and in parallel, the combination with conversion equipment, and the relationship between PV-side capacity and AC-side capacity all affect energy yield and loss results. Precisely because PVsyst has many configurable items, it is necessary to verify that the input values match the design intent. If there have been design changes, be careful not to output a report using the old configuration.

We will also clarify our approach to loss conditions before preparing the report. There are multiple factors that reduce power generation, such as temperature effects, wiring losses, mismatch, module quality, soiling, shading, and assumptions about equipment downtime. The degree to which these are anticipated depends on the project stage and the purpose of submission. When provisional conditions are used in a preliminary assessment, it is important to include explanatory notes so they are not mistaken for conditions based on detailed design.

Preparing a PVsyst report is not just a task of producing the final output. It is the process of getting the report into a state where, if asked after submission "What assumptions underlie this energy yield?", you can explain immediately. By organizing the input conditions in advance, you can streamline checks after output and be better prepared to handle questions after submission.

Items to Check Before Submission 1: Project Information and System Requirements

The items you should first check before submission are the project information and the system conditions. A PVsyst report displays the project name, installation location, system overview, the modules and power conversion equipment to be used, and the conditions of the simulation scenarios. Because this section forms the foundation of the entire document, errors here will affect subsequent explanations of energy production and losses.

In project information, start by checking the clarity of naming. If internal working names, formal names for submission, and design-proposal numbers are mixed together, it becomes unclear which report corresponds to which proposal. When comparing multiple patterns, make report names or variant names include expressions that indicate differences such as capacity, orientation, tilt, and layout options to make management easier.

Information about the installation site is also important. Because weather data and solar radiation conditions vary by location, verify that the target area has been correctly identified. Whether to include detailed address information in the report depends on the purpose of the submission, but at minimum confirm that the site under consideration and the point used in the simulation are not significantly offset. If you use meteorological data from a nearby location, it is advisable to be able to explain that assumption.

Under system conditions, the capacity on the PV side and the capacity on the conversion equipment side are checked separately. Some readers of the report may confuse which capacity is being referred to. Confirm whether the total capacity of the PV modules, the rated capacity of the conversion equipment, and the rationale for the connection configuration can be understood, and provide supplementary information as necessary.

In the equipment configuration, we verify that the number of modules, the number of series and parallel strings, the number of converters, and their connection relationships match the design. Even small differences in the series or parallel counts can affect the voltage range, converter operation, and loss results. If the configuration is changed during the design process, simulations may sometimes be produced using the previous conditions, so cross-checking with the latest documentation is essential.

Also, pay attention to units in the report. Installed capacity, generation, insolation, loss rate, specific yield, performance ratio, etc. each have different meanings. Even if this is obvious to experienced personnel, depending on the recipient there is a possibility of confusing capacity and energy, the DC side and the AC side, and annual values and monthly values. When using the document for submission, make sure not to overlook the units of important figures.

Project information and system conditions underpin the overall credibility of the report. If these are correct, they support subsequent explanations of power generation and losses. Conversely, if there are errors in the overview, the credibility of the entire document will decline even if the detailed results are well prepared. Before submission, it is fundamental to first verify that the project name, location, capacity, configuration, and units show no inconsistencies.

Pre-submission Checklist Item 2: Meteorological Data and Installation Conditions

The next thing to check is the meteorological data and the installation conditions. In solar PV simulations, factors such as solar irradiance, ambient temperature, and wind affect the energy output. Because PVsyst performs simulations based on meteorological data, it is important to be able to explain which location and which data are being used.

When reviewing meteorological data, confirm the relative location to the site and the local characteristics. Even data from nearby stations can have different conditions in mountainous areas, coastal zones, urban areas, or snow-covered regions. In the submitted documents, clarify whether the meteorological data used are appropriate to represent the site, or whether nearby data were used as a rough estimate.

Confirming the orientation and tilt angle is important when assessing installation conditions. Whether the layout is close to south-facing, an east–west roof, or a low-tilt ground-mounted installation will change the monthly generation trends. Rather than looking only at annual generation, verify that the installation conditions and the month-to-month variations are naturally consistent.

If there are multiple installation surfaces, we also check whether the conditions for each surface are correctly reflected. For roof installations, even on the same building the orientation and slope can vary from roof face to roof face. For ground installations as well, the row spacing, installation angle, and the effects of surrounding obstacles can differ depending on the section. If multiple surfaces are consolidated into a single set of conditions, we confirm whether that simplification is appropriate for the purpose of the submission.

We will also verify temperature conditions and installation methods. Because photovoltaic modules are affected by temperature, differences in installation—such as roof-adjacent mounting, ground-mounted racking, or well-ventilated layouts—can influence the results. If the report shows significant losses due to temperature, we will compare them with the installation method and local conditions to see whether they appear reasonable.

Dirt and snow handling can also be important depending on the project. Because the effects of soiling are influenced by the environment and rainfall conditions, being able to explain monthly loss settings and assumptions will make it easier to answer questions after submission. In snowy regions, you need to document the extent to which snow was reflected in the simulation, taking into account not only meteorological data but also local snow risk and maintenance policies.

When using PVsyst, you select and enter meteorological data and installation conditions before running the calculations, but you should review those conditions once more before submission. Conditions that were correct at the time of input can become outdated if there are design changes or layout changes. Cross-checking with the latest design information immediately prior to preparing the report makes it easier to prevent omissions in updating the conditions.

Item 3 to Check Before Submission: How Power Generation and Losses Are Displayed

The core of a PVsyst report is the results for energy production and losses. What reviewers pay most attention to is how much generation is expected annually, what the monthly trends will be, and which factors are causing reductions in output. Clearly confirming these points will enhance the explanatory power of the entire document.

The first thing to check is the annual energy production. Annual energy production is a representative value often referenced when assessing project feasibility or comparing designs. However, looking at annual energy production alone does not provide sufficient insight into the characteristics or risks of the facility. Checking it together with monthly generation, specific yield, performance ratio, and a breakdown of losses makes it easier to assess the validity of the results.

For monthly power generation, check whether the seasonal variations align with the installation conditions. It is natural for generation to be higher in seasons with good solar irradiance and lower in seasons with less, but if a particular month shows an extreme value, investigate the cause. Shading, snow accumulation, soiling, meteorological data, orientation, tilt angle, and assumptions about equipment downtime may be related.

Next, we examine the breakdown of losses. In solar power generation simulations, various losses and conversion effects are reflected from incident solar irradiance to the final electricity produced. We check which factors—temperature, wiring, mismatch, module quality, shading, soiling, power conversion equipment efficiency, downtime, etc.—are having the greatest impact on the results.

The Loss Diagram in PVsyst is an important document for checking the flow of losses. Because it lets you understand at which stage and to what extent losses occur, it makes it easier to explain why power generation is lower than expected. However, it is dangerous to judge that small loss rates alone indicate a good result. If losses are too small despite harsh site conditions, there is a possibility that conditions such as shading and soiling have not been sufficiently reflected.

Even when examining the performance ratio, be careful not to misinterpret its meaning. The performance ratio is an indicator of how much of the solar irradiance received by the installation can actually be extracted as useful electrical energy. Treating it simply as “power generation efficiency” can lead to misunderstandings. When explaining to the recipient, it is clearer to separate and organize annual energy production, specific yield, performance ratio, and the breakdown of losses.

When comparing multiple proposals, confirm that the comparison conditions are consistent. If meteorological data, installation location, loss settings, shading conditions, or system configuration differ, it becomes difficult to tell whether differences in power generation are due to design differences or to differing conditions. When submitting comparison materials, be sure to clearly indicate which conditions were kept the same and which were varied.

When creating PVsyst reports, it's important not only to tidy the appearance of the results but also to understand the flow of energy production and losses. Before submission, review the annual energy production, monthly energy production, the performance ratio, and the breakdown of losses as a single flow, and check for any figures that cannot be explained. If anything feels off, it's safer to go back to the input settings and verify before submitting.

Item 4 to Check Before Submission: Effects of Shadows and Placement Conditions

One thing that is easily overlooked in solar PV system reports is the impact of shading and layout conditions. In PVsyst you can examine shading from distant terrain or obstacles, shading from nearby obstacles, and shading caused by module layout. However, because the treatment of shading can change results depending on the input method and the degree of simplification, you need to verify the assumptions before submission.

Shadowing factors include surrounding buildings, trees, utility poles, equipment, roof upstands, slopes, mountains, and the front-to-back relationship among mounting racks. For rooftop installations, rooftop equipment and parapets can cast shadows. For ground-mounted installations, if row spacing is insufficient, shadows from the front row can fall on the rear row. Because the effects of shadows change with time of day and season, it can sometimes be difficult to judge from site photos alone.

In the submission report, confirm to what extent the effect of shading is reflected in the power generation. If shading losses are large, be prepared to explain the reasons. Describing in words the conditions under which they occur—such as shadows lengthening at low solar altitude in winter, nearby obstacles casting shadows in the morning and evening, or localized shading occurring in some sections—will make it easier for the recipient to understand.

On the other hand, caution is also needed when shading losses appear to be negligible. If there are obstacles on site but the simulation does not account for shading, the projected energy yield may look overly optimistic. When shading settings have been omitted or simplified at the estimation stage, those assumptions should be clearly stated.

When checking layout conditions, we confirm the module arrangement, row spacing, installation height, variations in orientation, and the available installation area. We verify that the layout in PVsyst matches the actual design drawings and that any design changes are reflected. If site conditions require moving some rows or reducing the number of modules, it becomes easy to overlook updating the simulation conditions.

Also, the effects of shading relate not only to power generation but also to explaining placement decisions. If the recipient asks, "Why is it placed in this location?" or "Why is this section left vacant?", the results of the shading analysis will serve as explanatory material. If the report clearly presents the shading assumptions, they will be easier to use as the rationale for design decisions.

When using PVsyst, how detailed the shading conditions you enter depends on the project stage. In early feasibility studies you may compare cases with simplified shading conditions, while at stages closer to detailed design you may reflect surrounding obstacles and module layout in greater detail. The important thing is to ensure that readers of the report can understand the degree of accuracy at which shading was modeled.

Before submission, verify not only the figures for shading losses but also that the layout conditions and on-site conditions are consistent. Because the effects of shading often become problematic later on-site, it is important to check them carefully at the report stage. Documentation that can explain the shading conditions serves not only as the basis for estimated power generation but also as evidence demonstrating the validity of design decisions.

Please translate the following input into English.

Pre-submission Check Item 5: Numerical Consistency and Ease of Explanation

A PVsyst report presents many numerical values. The information to check is wide-ranging, such as annual energy production, monthly energy production, system capacity, loss rates, specific yield, performance ratio, and solar irradiance. Before submission, verify that these figures do not contradict one another and that they are presented in a form that can be easily explained.

When checking numerical consistency, first confirm the relationship between installed capacity and annual power generation. If the annual generation is unusually large or small for the installed capacity, check whether there are errors in the input conditions or units. Results will vary depending on local solar irradiance, orientation, tilt angle, shading, and loss settings, but if they diverge significantly from general expectations, investigate the cause.

Next, examine the relationship between monthly electricity generation and annual generation. When checking the monthly figures, verify whether seasonal variations are natural and whether any particular month shows extreme values. If there are months with unusually high or low generation, this should prompt a review of the weather data, shading conditions, settings for snow or soiling, and assumptions about equipment downtime.

Consistency of loss rates is also important. Verify that each loss item aligns with on-site conditions and design conditions. If a layout that should have little shading shows large shading losses, there may be an error in the shading settings or layout conditions. Conversely, if an area with many obstructions has almost no shading losses, the shading conditions may not be adequately reflected. It is important to check the loss values against the actual site conditions.

It's also important that materials be easy to explain. PVsyst reports contain many technical items, which can make them difficult to understand for those who are unfamiliar with them. For technical personnel, consistency of detailed items is emphasized, but for approvers and clients it is necessary to clarify which figures are important and what they mean.

Comparisons with past projects or with similar conditions are also useful. However, rather than demanding that the values match past ones, verify whether any differences can be explained. If the installation location, orientation, tilt angle, shading conditions, equipment capacity, or loss settings differ, it is natural for the results to change. What’s important is being able to explain the reasons for those differences as differences in the conditions.

Questions you are likely to be asked after submission include: "Is this power output reasonable?", "Why are the losses so large?", and "Which is better compared with an alternative?". To answer these, you need to understand the numbers not in isolation but as a flow of conditions, results, losses, and judgments. If you try explaining it yourself before submission, you will more easily find parts that are hard to understand and points where the rationale is weak.

To master using PVsyst in practical work, it is essential not only to run calculations on the interface but also to practice reading and explaining the output reports. Verifying not only that the numbers are correct but also whether the information is communicated clearly and whether you can answer questions will increase the completeness of your submission materials.

Pre-submission Checklist Item 6: Readability of Submission Materials

Finally, what I want to confirm is the readability of the materials to be submitted. Because PVsyst reports contain a lot of technical information, not all readers will approach them with the same level of understanding. Those familiar with power generation simulations can glean the meaning of the items, but for others it can be unclear where they should look.

When checking readability, first see whether the report's purpose is clear. Whether it is for preliminary assessment, design comparison, approval, or pre-construction confirmation will change what should be emphasized. If you submit a report while the purpose is vague, the recipient may either scrutinize unnecessary details or, conversely, overlook important conditions.

Next, check whether the key figures are easy to find. It is important that the recipient can quickly access the information they want to know, such as annual generation, monthly generation, installed capacity, major loss items, and the impact of shading. Where appropriate, useful measures include attaching a separate summary sheet, indicating important pages, or guiding the viewing order in the explanatory text.

Clarity of terminology is also important. PVsyst reports include technical terms such as performance ratio, specific yield, incident irradiance, losses, mismatch, temperature effects, and conversion losses. Even if technical staff understand them, decision-makers may sometimes require supplementary explanation. Depending on the recipient's level of understanding, concisely explain the meaning of the terms and the key points to look at.

We also check for consistency among documents. We confirm that the figures in the PVsyst report match the contents of separately prepared summary documents, design drawings, capacity lists, layout diagrams, and so on. Even if PVsyst reflects the latest conditions, if other documents remain outdated, the recipient may point out inconsistencies. In particular, capacity, number of modules, project name, creation date, and installation conditions are prone to discrepancies between documents, so we reconcile them before submission.

Readability also means not adding too much unnecessary information. Just because a document is technical, attaching every configuration screen and all detailed information as-is can increase the reader’s burden. If detailed information is required for review or technical verification, include sufficient supporting evidence; if the purpose is an overview check, structure the material so that the important conditions and results are clear.

Readability of a submission document is not just about how neat it looks. The essence is that readers can understand the content without hesitation and obtain the information necessary for making a decision. Because PVsyst reports contain a large amount of information, check before submission whether someone seeing the document for the first time would understand what assumptions are being made and which results they should look at.

Practical approaches to reducing rework in PVsyst reports

To reduce the number of revision requests for PVsyst reports, it is important to make pre-submission checks a habit. The causes of requests for revision are not necessarily limited to calculation errors. There are various factors: insufficient explanation of the conditions, inconsistencies between documents, confusion over project names, unclear justification, and discrepancies with on‑site conditions. In other words, even if the simulation results are correct, if they are not properly conveyed in the documentation, a recheck will be requested.

In practice, even if the person who prepared a report understands its contents, the recipient may not share the same assumptions. For example, the person responsible may know that shadow settings were simplified, but someone who only receives the report might assume that a detailed review was conducted. When there are estimated conditions, provisional assumptions, or site conditions that have not yet been reflected, they should be clearly stated in the documentation and during explanations.

Also, conditions change as a project progresses. It is not uncommon for the layout in the initial study, the capacity during the design phase, and the configuration in the final proposal to differ. Therefore, each time you submit a report, you need to verify that it matches the latest design conditions. When reusing previously created data, pay particular attention to ensure that no old conditions remain.

To prevent a submission from being sent back, you need not only to verify the numbers but also to prepare explanations. Before the recipient asks questions, organize the assumptions about power generation, the reasons for large losses, how shading is handled, the rationale for selecting meteorological data, and your approach to system configuration—this will make responses smoother. Materials that allow you to explain things immediately provide the other party with reassurance.

In internal reviews, it is also effective to have someone other than the creator look things over. Because the creator remembers the flow of the input work, they can overlook issues due to assumptions. A third party is more likely to notice unclear names, misunderstandings about units, inconsistencies between documents, and insufficient explanations. For important submission materials, separating technical verification from review of the documents makes it easier to reduce oversights.

When you're just starting to learn PVsyst, being able to generate a report can make the work feel complete. However, in practical work, it's the review after output that matters. Reports are often used as decision-making material, and the figures and conditions shown there inform design, investment, and construction decisions. Checking six items before submission reduces operational mistakes, condition mismatches, and insufficient explanations, and makes it easier to improve the reliability of the documentation.

Summary: After preparing the report, also confirm its connection with on-site information

When creating a PVsyst report, it is important not only to verify the reported energy output but also to comprehensively check the project information, meteorological data, installation conditions, generation, losses, shading effects, and the readability of the document. By covering the six items to review before submission, you can reduce overlooked figures and condition mismatches and make it easier to produce a report that is simple to explain.

In practical work, a key point is whether the conditions in PVsyst match the on-site situation. The shape of the planned installation site, racking layout, surrounding obstructions, roof slope, row spacing, shading conditions, and so on cannot always be fully assessed from desk-based settings alone. To improve the reliability of energy yield simulations, it is essential to correctly reflect information obtained on site in the design and simulation conditions.

Before submitting a report, first confirm the project information and equipment conditions in the summary section, then review the meteorological data and installation conditions. After that, review the flow of power generation and losses and check whether there are any anomalies regarding shading effects or layout conditions. Finally, review whether the document as a whole is easy for the recipient to read and whether it can answer expected questions. Checking in this order makes it easier to improve the completeness of the submission as a document, rather than performing a mere numerical check.

PVsyst is a useful simulation software for assessing the power output of photovoltaic installations. However, to make the results actionable, it is important to organize and link the input conditions, site information, design documents, and the review perspectives of the submission recipient. After preparing the report, check not only the numerical values but also whether the supporting evidence for those values is complete, and, if necessary, include supplementary materials before submitting.