Re: Landscape design programs?

**"* O* <t*@earthlink.net>**

Marge,

   This is very helpful, and much appreciated! I don't do many designs, only
once in awhile when someone cons me into it....but am working on one now.
gracias!

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marge Talt" <mtalt@hort.net>
To: "Garden Writers -- GWL -- The Garden Writers Forum"
<gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [GWL] Landscape design programs?

> > From: Tom Ogren <tloallergyfree@earthlink.net>
> > I'm wondering if anyone on this list has used any landscape design
> computer
> > programs that they especially like. Would appreciate any and all
> > recommendations.
> ----------
>
> I've been using Pro Landscape for the past year or so.  Tried
> Earthscape and it was impossible - just really clunky and the results
> were pretty awful IMO - sent the software back after many calls with
> their tech people - on my dime -  and while they'd advertised a 30 or
> 60 day trial (forget which), they were pretty nasty about accepting
> the return; also tried a 'try out' version of another, whose name
> escapes me, and it was worse.
>
> Pro Landscape is less impossible but still not fantastic because of
> what I can only assume is buggy software or basically poor
> programming.  I can get the job done, but it takes way more time than
> it should for the money.  Depends on what you're trying to accomplish
> with the software.  None of it 'designs' for you...it's only a tool
> for putting what you're thinking on paper.
>
> Pro Landscape consists of 3 parts; The first is an image editor
> which, other than having access to the images in the database, I find
> really clunky.  I can make a better image in Photoshop - it is
> designed to enable you to take an image of the client's property and
> add the plants you're proposing so they can see what it would look
> like.  It's a great tool; clients love it but the images the program
> generates are not as good as those I can make in Photoshop....the
> only plus is the ability to add a fill, like paving or mulch, easier
> than you can in Photoshop.  Its shadowing tools are primitive
> compared to those in SketchUP (a 3-D program I highly recommend to
> anyone wanting to do anything in 3-D- now owned by Google with a free
> version for download).
>
> The second part is a CAD program which is more useful than the Image
> Editor, tho' it makes me so mad I could throw it out the
> window...however, it will number all plants and generate a plant list
> with key number, symbol, quantity, size and an image if you want it
> and it does have options for rendering.
>
> If you are not familiar with CAD, you'll have a goodly learning curve
> although they do try to make it easier in some respects than
> architectural CAD programs...'try' is the operative word here.  IMO,
> it is still pretty unintuitive despite their adding features that
> supposedly draw walls, mulched areas, etc. for you.   It does, on a
> simplistic level, which has not worked for me on my jobs.
>
> >From my point of view, as someone who loathes drafting, it has the
> advantage of allowing one to make changes much more quickly than
> re-drafting by hand - once you get the plan drawn in the first place,
> which like all CAD, takes longer than hand drafting it unless you're
> a CAD whiz.  You can copy and paste; you can export the file as a
> .dwg file or a .jpg.  You can import standard CAD files, site plans
> from engineers, etc. to use as a base plan.  You can use fills and if
> you work hard enough at it, end up with a semi-decent rendered plan -
> not as good as a  good hand rendered one, but if you can't render,
> it's a whole lot better than nothing:-)  You can print to scale (in
> color) on any size paper you can manage or send the file off to a
> printer for large format if you want to.
>
> The third part is a proposal or report generator.  Since I don't
> install or sell plants, the proposal is useless; the reports are
> marginal because of buggy software and really limited formats, but if
> they worked properly, they'd be a time saver instead of a timesink.
>  You can generate a 'report' containing the data on the plant, its
> care and image and export it into Word or Excel to edit it - which is
> what I have done - basically have to rewrite it, but it's a start as
> the formatting is there....still more work to come up with something
> you'd want to present to a client than it ought to be.  However,
> clients really like the 'care and data' sheets on each plant you're
> proposing, especially those who are new to gardening and don't know
> plants.
>
> All three are based on the same database which, for reasons I cannot
> fathom, they decided to create based on plant common names.  This
> simply blows my mind and I have told everyone I've talked to at
> Drafix my views on it.  Imagine the interesting entries this
> engenders; the duplication of  plants, etc....well...anyway, at least
> all parts are based on the same software, unlike Earthscape, which
> consisted of 3 entirely separate pieces of software they'd obviously
> bought rights to and stitched together more or less.
>
> All of them tout their wonderful plant databases.  Ha!  Earthscape's
> is tied to Horticopia and only comes with part of that - you can get
> the rest for considerably more money.  Horticopia's images are
> better, for the most part, than Pro Landscape's but you still have to
> cut out any you'd want to use that are not in their database (lots of
> them) and all are not that great. Cutting out plant images is VERY
> time-consuming.  I do it in Photoshop because I can work in greater
> detail and faster than in the landscaping software; save the files as
> .pngs to the appropriate Pro Landscape folder and then change the
> file suffix to their proprietary formats.  Not the way they want it
> to happen, but it's better than using their image editing tools:-)
>
>  Pro Landscape's images are of highly varying quality and their
> database contains only the most common plants.  I end up having to
> cut out and add images for and data for just about every plant I want
> to use.  Data is not always accurate when there is a plant I want in
> the database, so I end up having to edit that.  You can, with time
> and effort, create a database that eventually would be useful in most
> situations, but it does not come with the software, believe me!
>
> Can't say great things about the program as I am currently steaming
> over several issues I had to deal with getting a job out of here last
> Friday, but, of what's out there on a 'professional' level, it's
> about the best one.   Customer support has been pleasant to deal with
> if not able to solve the issues.  They've got a new version just out;
> might be an improvement; I am not, at this point, willing to sink yet
> more money into it to find out.
>
> Probably more than you wanted to know:-)
>
> Marge Talt, zone 7 Maryland
> mtalt@hort.net
> Shadyside Garden Designs
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gardenwriters mailing list
> gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters
>
> GWL has searchable archives at:
> http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters
>
> Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
> at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos
>
> Post gardening questions/threads to
> &quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;
>
> For GWL website and Wiki, go to
> http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
&quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters