I'd like to mention the importance of all Cory said because basically it's the summary of nearly all I told you at the beginning of this year and I hope that this also helps Brandon to push the importance of some points to the decision makers:
If Vision isn't intuitive (especially for Vectorworks users), they won't use it because there are some other (partially cheaper) visualisation programs on the market (grandMA 3D, WYSIWYG) they already use. Why should they change to a program that takes a lot time and work to understand? And the point that Vision looks better than other visualizer will NOT be the deciding point. I can only speak for all of the LDs and lighting programmer I know and work with but I am very sure that this is the standard in Germany: at the end the lighting programmer is the one that decides which visualisation program will be used. And for him it's not the most important point that it looks good. This is a good selling point for the LD, but again... at the end he is not the one who decides. And for the programmer it is most important that he can work fast and intuitiv with the software, that he can make quick changes during the preprogramming and that the fixtures behave in the software like they do in reality.
So as Cory mentioned, there are some "small" things like the measuring unit but at the end these things will make the decision if someone buys a Vision licence or not. As you know I had a lot of troubles last year finding out what these numbers stand for and it tooks me a lot of time to make small changes in the Vision file like lifting the trusses 1m up because they decided this during the preprogramming or to tell anybody on which height a truss actually is when I don't wanted to run the Vectorworks file the whole time. I had the time to figure it out because we made this test project but anybody else would go back to his known program to save time.
Especially there is no Vision manual at the moment the program has to be user friendly!
And for really good lighting design renderings where the look is the most important thing, in my opinion at the moment Vision also isn't the program to choose because often the lighting design is made by persons who don't use lighting consoles very often so the need pallettes where they can control colour, gobos and things like that easily without using a lighting console (like Capture, Cinema4D).
So Vision needs to decide if it wants to be a previz programm for lighting design - than it needs some more tools - or a preprogramming software - than all these "small" things that make working with it so complicated (I also mentioned them in my mail at the beginning of this year) need to be fixed.
By the way... please keep on making Vision usuable in mm because otherwise it will be hard to distribute it in Europe.