So any input from the pros who have used either of these? Any others I should be looking at? Both systems tout their ease of use and low learning curve - this is probably one of the most important aspects for me as time is extremely precious.

I use Autocad lite which is not an industry specific cad program and has a very big learing curve that I got through in school and working full time with it alongside more experienced people. I think it would be better to stick with a lesser learning curve.

If you use MAC, you might want to check out VectorWorks. I know some architects who are very happy with it. I don't happen to know any landscape designers using it. There is a landscape specific version whose name escapes me, but you'll find it on VectorWorks web site.

I haven't tried Earthscapes, and I'm really frustrated by the fact that PRO doesn't have a trial version- it's pony up $1400 to even try it. I use AutoCAD as well, and I found it pretty intuitive- a community college class to get up to speed, and then just practice. I tried Dynascape and hated it... what I've found with several landscape-specific programs is that they try to do so much for you, it's really hard to do things a different way if it works better for you.

I wish I could help with either of the programs you mentioned, but that's my two cents. AutoCAD LT is just so cheap, and it's so easy to share files with architects and engineers, and it's JUST a drafting tool, nothing else. I like that, because anything I can do on paper, I can do just as easily in CAD. If you want to see some examples of how you can use CAD and still get an organic-looking presentation document, let me know and I'll share some of my stuff.

Dave

Autocad is easy enough if you are starting drawings from scratch, but if you are getting files from others there are so many variables that they can have set in different ways that can really mess you up if you are not up to speed. I like it because I don't have to deal with tons of dialog boxes where the program wants to lead me through the process because it can be time consuming.

The key is to modify the plant blocks/images so they are unique to your company.

I currently use AutoCAD. It was an easy transition after using Pro, and a few hours of training from our AutoCAD drafter.

One very nice feature of any of these programs is they will count your plants for you.

As for layout and install... I don't find that my plans get modified much in the field. Through the magic of AutoCAD, I've drawn the plan to a ridiculous degree of accuracy, and I've provided the installer with a layout page that shows where to pull string lines, how to locate the radius points, and what grades to set where.

I think the plan is certainly for both the client and the installer. It's a communication tool, telling the homeowner what they're buying, and showing the contractor what he or she is building. It's our job to provide whatever supporting documents we need to facilitate understanding of the plan (elevations, photos of similar work, maybe perspective drawings if the design fees accommodate that), but it all comes back to a solid plan, doesn't it?

Dave

Just another plug for why I prefer AutoCAD: I was drafting permit plans for a screen porch today and calling out USP connectors. Their website has a plug-in for AutoCAD that allows you, within the drawing, to go to a dedicated menu and drop pre-made blocks into your drawing. Love it!

Dave

ps. I'm leaning heavily to PRO Landscape but haven't ruled out Dynascapes. Earthscapes is out of the running.

I doubt photoimaging is a big priority for me - I don't care for most of it and it's not my style. I can always do hand drawn presentations for this purpose like I've done in the past. I am more concerned about a very low learning curve, the actual drafting ease and capacity of the software, the symbol library and the ability to generate a plant schedule and specs.

Decent symbol libraries are pretty easy to come by for CAD. www.cben.net has literally thousands, you just need to browse the site. I'm sure you can buy some libraries, too.

If you're looking to have the program count your plant blocks and put the data in a table, you can do that too. I don't, but that's a workflow thing. You can create boundaries and get accurate square footages of irregularly shaped areas. The tool I miss the most when I'm at the board is circle- tangent, tangent, radius. No more guessing where to center the compass.

I take that back- sometimes, at the board, when I get rolling with the electric eraser, I find myself wishing for an undo button.

If all you're after is an electronic archiver and drafting board, you don't need bells and whistles. And don't think that just because you did the plan in AutoCAD (or equivalent), you can't add your hand-drawn flair and color rendering to it.

Dave

It is very close to Acad, but if you use it very deeply there are some bugs that can rear their heads. Chances are that you won't be that deep into it to be affected by them. I had lots of problems with it because it did not handle multiple layered blocks the same way that Acad did. This was a problem for me mostly to do with survey points in drawings which were very important to me.

The full blown program is about half the cost of Acad Lt and about a tenth of the cost of full blown Acad last time I checked.

Also, Eaglepoint was providing Intellicad as its cad engine at no additional charge a few years ago. I dont know if it still does.

Be very careful not to call it a "type of Autocad" because Acad is very protective of its copyrights.

Dave

I have been learning Auto CAD for about 9 months, I am now getting comfortable with it and like it a lot. Learning it however was tough ( for me) I took a Cad landscape class last spring through our local college, and learning cad
was a big challenge for me. But I did, and I am now taking it again this semester independent study. So I can get quicker and more professional looking drawings.

The main drawback with my learning curve is that the instructor Is not a designer, but a techie, so he was not so interested in my designs as he was having me execute the program.

Hey Dave, for my independent study final I am supposed to upgrade my last semesters final in comparison with a professional drawing, learning to match lint types etc.... if you are interested in mentoring??? I.E.Sharing a good drawing I could learn from, I would be eternally grateful.

My favorite things about using cad, the ease of a redraw, xref plant lists, and emailing the drawings to the printer, just walking in and they are ready.

I am still struggling having the drawings look ' nice' IE artsy, but seriously thats not important to either my clients nor the installer, its just that they look a little sterile to me, but maybe thats cause I am still learning! deb

Dave

I don't color render very often. When I do it is usually for a commercial project that is not overly detailed with landscape plants. What I do is to take my plant blocks used in the drawing and re-insert them into the drawing at a scale of one. I snap a line to the insertiom point of the block and then explode the block. Then I draw a circle around the outline of the plant on its own layer. I copy the circle twice, placing one so the center is slightly up to the left of the center of the original and one slightly down to the right. I trim the part of the upper right circle which goes outside of the one that fits the plant symbol. I also trim the part of the lower right circle that is inside of the plant circle. That gives me three areas to color with solid hatching. I do light, shade,& shadow. Then use the drawing order command to push them behind the linework of the symbol. Then I redefine the block and it changes all of them in the drawing to have the color.You can freeze the color layers if you want to print just the line work.

Then I solid hatch other areas being careful to manage the drawing order to keep linework on top. (sorry about the blue linework, it is usually black, but I was in a hurry - this one is also done with the shadow to the lower left and I described it to the lower right)