You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Not necessarily a bug, but a perhaps unintuitive behavior: when passing in an external power_expected time series, it is used for both sensor-based and clearsky-based workflows. To my mind, part of the spirit behind the clear-sky workflow is that the normalization is tied to the modeled clear-sky irradiance, which is not the case when using a custom power_expected. I think if passing in an external power_expected time series, the sensor and clear-sky workflows become identical except for the csi_filter (not 100% sure about this though).
Some ideas:
Separate power_expected_sensor and power_expected_clearsky inputs
Keep the code the way it is now, but emit a warning if power_expected is used in the clear-sky workflow
Do nothing, because the code is just doing what you told it to do
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Not necessarily a bug, but a perhaps unintuitive behavior: when passing in an external
power_expected
time series, it is used for both sensor-based and clearsky-based workflows. To my mind, part of the spirit behind the clear-sky workflow is that the normalization is tied to the modeled clear-sky irradiance, which is not the case when using a custompower_expected
. I think if passing in an externalpower_expected
time series, the sensor and clear-sky workflows become identical except for thecsi_filter
(not 100% sure about this though).Some ideas:
power_expected_sensor
andpower_expected_clearsky
inputspower_expected
is used in the clear-sky workflowThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: