The layout is the step that fixes every number in a ground-mounted plant: module count, DC capacity, table count, cable lengths and therefore the capital cost all follow from it. SolarSimPro generates the layout using the site geometry, the terrain analysis and the shading constraints together — and you can edit the result by hand.
| Input | Effect |
|---|---|
| Mounting table configuration | The rows × modules arrangement (for example 3×26). Table size, table count and mounting cost follow from it. |
| Module orientation and tilt | Module tilt and azimuth; they affect yield and row-to-row shading together. |
| Row spacing (pitch) | The balance between ground coverage and shading loss. Change it and the module count and yield update together. |
| Setback | The distance left inside the site boundary; it defines the buildable area. |
| Slope threshold | Where the threshold is exceeded the layout is skipped or the table is split. |
| Obstacles | Poles, trees, structures and access roads are excluded from the layout. |
The layout is produced with one click, but the decision stays with you. You can move or delete the generated tables, split a row, or clear an area entirely. With every change the module count, DC capacity and estimated yield update instantly — you never wait for a report to see what a change costs.
The optimiser proposes alternative layouts against the criterion you choose — highest installed capacity, most uniform array, or lowest shading loss — and shows the difference between them numerically.
On a flat site the layout is a geometry problem; on sloping ground it is not. Tables follow the ground elevation, rows are split where the slope threshold is exceeded, and in the 3D output every table sits at its own level. This is not only a visual detail: mounting-system cost, cut-and-fill volumes and cable lengths all depend on it.
From site boundary to layout plan in five steps.
The quality of an automatic layout depends on how accurately the constraints are defined. Fitting modules in is easy; leaving empty the places that must stay empty is the hard part.
Once the constraints are defined the layout works around them automatically; change the boundary, the setback or an obstacle and the module arrangement is regenerated, with module count and installed capacity updating at the same time.
On ground-mounted plants the parameter that really shapes the layout is row spacing. Tightening the pitch fits more modules on the site but increases the shading the rows cast on each other; opening it reduces shading but lowers installed capacity.
The right question is not "how many metres should the pitch be" but at what spacing the highest net yield per hectare occurs. That answer is not a fixed number: it changes with latitude, ground slope, the direction of the slope and the table type. A north-facing slope produces more shading at the same spacing; a south-facing one can take a tighter pitch.
In SolarSimPro, changing the spacing updates module count, installed capacity and shading loss together, so the balance is established by measurement rather than estimate. See the shading analysis page for the detail.
Once a layout has been generated, the optimisation step tries different arrangements and positions on the same site in search of a better result. What it looks for is not simply "more modules": slope and position are balanced together, because an extra row placed on steeper ground can raise both earthworks cost and shading loss at once.
Optimisation runs against your selection: only the sites you have marked, or all of them if nothing is selected. Results are reported one by one as it proceeds, so it is visible which option won and why. If you do not like the result, manual editing always takes precedence — automatic generation is the starting point, not the final word.
The layout does not stay on screen. The setting-out plan is produced from the same geometry: table blocks with their arrangement type (for example a 2×13 module table) on their own layer, module surfaces on another, setback and site corner coordinates on another again. Coordinate schedules are written into tables and the drawing is georeferenced — overlay the DXF on your own project file and it lands in the right place.
That way the whole chain, from layout to bill of materials and on to feasibility and the proposal, rests on a single module count. A proposal whose module count differs from the installation plan is one of the most expensive mistakes on site; preventing exactly that is the point of a single model.
Yes. Generated tables can be moved, split or deleted; with every change the module count, DC capacity and yield estimate update instantly.
Tables follow the ground elevation. Rows can be split where the slope threshold is exceeded, and in the 3D output each table sits at its own level.
They can. Each table type is written to the output as its own block and layer, and appears as a separate line in the bill of materials.
There is no single correct value. Increasing the spacing reduces shading loss but lowers the module count. Because the software shows both effects together, you can decide by looking at the payback period for your own site.
Yes. The distance held back from the site boundary is defined as its own constraint; the layout never crosses that strip, and the setback comes through as a separate layer in the CAD output. Unusable zones such as transmission-line easements, access roads and transformer compounds can be defined the same way.
Yes, and on most projects you will need to. Automatic generation is the starting point: you can move or delete tables, change the arrangement type, or keep a particular area clear. Your manual changes are preserved, and module count, installed capacity and the bill of materials update accordingly.
Tables follow the ground surface, and row spacing is assessed with the steepness and direction of the slope taken into account. Because the same spacing produces more shading on a north-facing slope, the layout and the shading analysis should be read together. For areas needing earthworks, a rough cut-and-fill volume is given as a preliminary estimate.
It is. Layout, bill of materials, feasibility and proposal are all fed from the same geometry, with no intermediate transfer. The most expensive mistakes on site are usually not calculation errors but version-mismatch errors — different counts in different files.
Yes. In the rooftop application you define the building footprint, roof edges, eaves and parapets, along with obstacles such as stacks and lift overruns; modules are then placed around those constraints. The method is the same, only the type of constraint changes.
Let us generate the layout together on your own site.