My primary lighting rep is an LC and uses Visual exclusively. He doesn't use or is able to manipulate AGI drawings. Because he uses Visual Pro he is very adept at it and can send me very skilled drawings, however the drawings he sends I feel are lacking the detail that AGI32 provides. It seems to me that AGI32 is the gold standard in lighting design software and when I speak with other companies whether they are engineering firms or manufacturers we are able to speak the same language. AGI32 can do amazing things. I will never come close to doing all that AGI32 can do and it makes me sad to know that I will never do some of the cool things that AGI32 can do, but that is because of me, not because of AGI32!

When I first came to my present employer I was using Visual and quite happy with it. However my company used AGI32 exclusively so I had to start using it. It was easier than I had expected to learn to use it, and I am an old dog. New tricks are hard! My company sent me to the various training classes. Mostly I would be doing roadway lighting and so the training was most helpful. I also was able to take home the training materials for reference.

The only con to me, and this could be just me as I will never be more than a neophyte user is that much of the training material seems very convoluted and often times it is difficult to figure out who to do certain simple things. It's hard to give an example as the issues pop up as you are using them. But it seems to me that the issues I run into are simple problems that should have simple solutions and I hate to have to send an email to support for every small issue I run into. Also it would be nice if there was an easier way to contact support rather than having to send in a ticket and wait for a response. Often times it might be a simple problem that an advanced user can solve quickly and easily but then the user has to articulate the issue in an email and send it in and wait causing undue delays in their own work. This is in no way a knock on the support team, they are amazing. It just seems to me that a faster way of getting simple support could be created and if the issue is more complex, THEN a support ticket can be issued.

This tool helped me understand the physics of lighting and made me a better lighting designer. It was easy to select from several different fixtures and design to the best performance and not over-light or under-light an area. Using AGI32 helps me provide the best solution for my customer with the most efficient effort in my day.

AGI32 is the most versatile lighting program that I have used to develop accurate and difficult lighting designs that consider all environmental variables . This design tool can quickly calculate the lighting values on any required surface and take into account, daylighting, complex surfaces, and obstructions to generate calculations/renderings to provide a "real world" representation. Simple to hard areas are quickly built and manipulated without having to do major changes to the program. It is very intuitive to use and with regular use you can pick up more effective ways to do lighting design.

Depending on the size of the project and the complexity of the area, it requires a pretty powerful computer to run all the calculations. If using a typical computer you might have several minute delay from when you hit "calculate" to when they are completed. If you are running several different versions or making final changes this might require extra patience during the process.

I liked working in AGI32 environment, the ease of commands, rendering, navigation. I just wish that they would remain competitive in terms of pricing compared to the other lighting software that engineers use.

This software is so easy to use, nice rendering and you can be creative with it.

Noticed that the price is always increasing everytime we renew it. My manager might encourage me to use a different software down the road.

I have personally used AGI since the days of DOS , around 2000 I remember started training on the new windows version of the AGI program. I also took the training courses offered by Lighting Analysts to better my understanding of the intent and capabilities of the program, as I would need to actually use it in our daily operations of the company. Every few years we have to fight to keep the AGI as our primary photometric software with someone always trying to introduce some new software, or something we use in Europe into our US based company operations.

The program is straight forward and simple if you want to do simple things, yet has the ability to take it to a higher level if you need to be more detailed in your outputs. Both with presentation and calculation capabilities.

I do not have any real complaints of the software, but I do have issues with my hardware when I try to use the Adaptive Subdivision option, but I think it is more memory/hardware related.. at least that is my guess, but I am unable to do detailed renderings because of that as well.

The major solutions I've experienced is responding to the client with a visual representation of the real world appearance in a meaningful and easily understood way giving the client a better understanding of my proposed design such as when I am tasked with the design of a colored lighting effect on a major bridge such as the Pont Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal, Canada. I have used AGI32 since it was first conceived and presented to me for use when I was first introduced to it in the Microsoft operating system in the early 1980s.

In setting up a project, I find that the capability for AGI32 to import both 2D and 3D models is a very time-saving feature. with the simplicity built in to the application, it saves a bundle of time in creating the model since it can be created in AutoCAD and directly imported with the necessary attributes already embedded in the AGI32 model.

Occasionally, I find that implementing a specific pole/fixture layout is not possible since the definition of the location of the fixture on the pole is limited. The height of the pole and the height of the fixture could be more effectively defined since I find many times in creating the model, my fixture height, mast arm length, and mounting arrangement, cannot be well defined such as when mounting a fixture on an arm at some distance below the top of the pole.