Can you please
consider adding a field to the Luminaire Location Summary or Expanded Luminaire
Location Summary, that would define the luminaire ARM or as we call it the luminaire
We have to manually create this field and type the Outreach values in when we create a road lighting summary. That is the final value which locates the road lighting luminaire accurately. This field would be valuable for all our road lighting designs and assist in preventing typing errors as we manually add it in our cad package.
Thanks for weighing in on the discussion. I am a bit new to using forums.All our street lighting clients require a detailed luminaire location summary and we may have for instance a 150 watt HPS lantern which is located in a project with three different outreaches (arms), different mounting heights and the like. Yes it will display in the luminaire schedule, however, it is a final piece of the puzzle for the installer and engineering draftsman and we therefore add it to the luminaire location or to the expanded luminaire location summary. We can invent symbols which indicate what the arm is, however, for an arm field to be automatically populated in the luminaire location summary would remove one additional areas of possible error. Appreciate your comments. You have been very helpful in another issue I recently had.
There is a field called 'Arm' in the Luminaire Schedule. I think they place it here because it is part of the Luminaire Definition, and therefore for each Luminaire Label on the Luminaire Location Summary or Expanded Luminaire Location Summary it would be identical.
It's not to say that they couldn't put it in there, but that's probably the rationale behind the current situation.
It does point out the concept that it'd probably be preferable if we could just create our own schedules from all the available fields - no real reason why we couldn't, I think?
Having the Arm or Outreach in the Luminaire Location Summary would complete the schedule nicely for us. For every road lighting project we add this in Auto cad. The tme saving would be excellent. Please consider. Thnaks Ron
Understood. It certainly demonstrates that allowing users to decide the contents of the schedules would be preferable. Lighting Analysts can't anticipate all the ways that the program will be used.
Understood. Unfortunately you're barking up the wrong forum frequenter. I'm just another AGi32 user, not affiliated with Lighting Analysts.
I was just weighing in with my two cents worth.
Knowing I'm not with Lighting Analysts might make my comments seem a lot more clear in retrospect?