When viewing the isolines for lux levels on a project, often they appear quite jagged and unsightly. Whilst this might be technically correct in terms of point-by-point values, the human eye/brain is likely to perceive the result as being quite acceptable. Unfortunately, a lot of clients viewing the output of AGi32 can see the isolines as problematic due to their sharp angles and odd shapes.
It's my understanding that the 'tension' of a curve drawn through points in the Graphic Method of your software could be adjusted so that the curve is more or less 'round'. Could we either get more organic looking curves in the Isolines, or if you don't want that as the default in AGi32, could you please give us the option to adjust that 'tension'?
Could you please send your AGi file to Help@Agi32.com so that we can take a look?
I am adding light pole to side of road. The isoline are not showing and I don't know how to fix it. Also I did not figure it out where should I define the high of pole. I greatly appreciate your help.
Well, anyone who uses isolines as more than a guide is probably in for a shock anyhow. I tend not to use them, preferring to offer calc points instead. Part of the reason I don't use them is I don't like the way AGi32 renders them.
Recommended calc spacings in interiors here is 200mm, or 500mm for rooms that are large or have very high ceilings. I don't think having a density greater than those is warranted.
Your resistance based upon consistency is admirable, but it's hobbling your users and there's plenty of other ways that designs can remain inconsistent with the current AGi32 setup (two ways that come to mind without devoting more than a second or two's though are radiosity stopping criterion and calculating multiple spaces at the same time vs single spaces at a time).
Here's an example. A different example you could try is to do some symmetrical rooms with symmetrical layouts and symmetrical calc grid spacings - I suspect you'll find that you get the odd anomaly (probably related to rounding) that affects the isolines.
Not a bad idea. For now, increasing the calc point density (i.e. reducing the calc point spacing) should help smooth things out quite a bit. If you'd like to send us a file where this problem is especially bad, we'd be glad to take a closer look and see if there is anything that can be done.
The main challenge with having settings to control the isoline smoothness is consistency. If User A calcs a layout with one set of isoline settings, and User B calcs the same layout, but with different isoline settings, it would be unclear which isoline locations would the the "correct" ones.
Furthermore, if User A and User B were unable to determine that the different settings were the cause of the different isoline locations, it could reduce overall confidence in the output of the program.
These obstacles are certainly something that could be overcome, but they would need to be considered carefully. Many thanks for the suggestion.