[Request] Different DPL strategies for handling multiple inverters

[schlimmchen]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The implementation merged in #1216 prefers to change the limit of those inverters which promise to implement the needed change in AC output with a single limit update. If none can implement the change in one go, the inverters are sorted by the contribution they can make to the required change.

This tries to make sure that the DPL reacts as quickly as possible.

This also means that the DPL is happy to put inverters online, but hesitant to put them into standby.

However, people objected that this can lead to less than ideal situations, where multiple inverters are online producing at less efficiency while less inverters could be producing at the same total power with higher efficiency.

Describe the solution you'd like

Without too much trouble, we could implement different strategies in the DPL. The respective function implementing a particular strategy would always receive a bunch of inverters as input as well as the desired change in output, and it would be responsible to determine which of those inverters are supposed to change their limit by how much.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

I am happy to help implement different strategies and make them selectable (config switch, UI changes, etc.). If you think the DPL should implement a different strategy, please see

OpenDTU-OnBattery/src/PowerLimiter.cpp

Lines 546 to 588 in 61aa32a

	if (diff < 0) {
	uint16_t reduction = static_cast<uint16_t>(diff * -1);
	uint16_t totalMaxReduction = 0;
	for (auto const pInv : matchingInverters) {
	totalMaxReduction += pInv->getMaxReductionWatts(false/*no standby*/);
	}
	// test whether we need to put at least one of the inverters into
	// standby to achieve the requested reduction.
	bool allowStandby = (totalMaxReduction < reduction);
	std::sort(matchingInverters.begin(), matchingInverters.end(),
	[allowStandby](auto const a, auto const b) {
	auto aReduction = a->getMaxReductionWatts(allowStandby);
	auto bReduction = b->getMaxReductionWatts(allowStandby);
	return aReduction > bReduction;
	});
	for (auto pInv : matchingInverters) {
	auto maxReduction = pInv->getMaxReductionWatts(allowStandby);
	if (reduction >= hysteresis && maxReduction >= hysteresis) {
	reduction -= pInv->applyReduction(reduction, allowStandby);
	}
	covered += pInv->getExpectedOutputAcWatts();
	}
	}
	else {
	uint16_t increase = static_cast<uint16_t>(diff);
	std::sort(matchingInverters.begin(), matchingInverters.end(),
	[](auto const a, auto const b) {
	return a->getMaxIncreaseWatts() > b->getMaxIncreaseWatts();
	});
	for (auto pInv : matchingInverters) {
	auto maxIncrease = pInv->getMaxIncreaseWatts();
	if (increase >= hysteresis && maxIncrease >= hysteresis) {
	increase -= pInv->applyIncrease(increase);
	}
	covered += pInv->getExpectedOutputAcWatts();
	}
	}

for inspiration and describe the method you would like to see the DPL using. The more technical (flow-chart, pseudo-code) and detailed, the better.

[Manos1966]

Hi @schlimmchen suchst du weiterhin nach [Tersters]?
(ich habe eine Test-Installation mit 2-3 Hoymiles online).

[schlimmchen]

Naja, jetzt ist die Katze ja aus dem Sack. Unsere Nutzer werden das neue Release sicherlich ausprobieren und wir hören sicherlich, wenn es Probleme gibt.

[spcqike]

Ich hab aktuell nur 1 wechselrichter und viel zu wenig Sonne.

Das Feature testen werde ich dann ab April 2025 😄

[Manos1966]

Jesus! 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱

🥇 🥇 🥇 🥇 🥇 🥇 🥇 🥇
🥂 🥂 🥂 🥂 🥂 🥂 🥂 🥂