Garden Design Software
MARTINGUY
- the programs that I had tried were not up to much and there does not seem to
be any good ones about.
Guy Martin
peter
advised with, perhaps, the following additions:-
(Forgive me if I 'wax lyrical' for a second but this is my 'hobby horse')
1) AutoCAD is the best software for drawing plans with the distinct
advantage that it is 'dimension accurate' and can therefore be used as your
construction blueprint. You can make amendments, both minor and major,
comparatively easily.
2) If you have a 3D AutoCAD programme - (it sounded as though Cormaic had
the 2D version, otherwise he wouldn't have needed Tubocad which is rather a
different 'animal'), you can visulise your garden or landscape site from any
angle at virtually the click of a button.
3) Whilst the available library of 3D plants, shrubs and trees is improving
day by day, (Keyscape for instance), the insertion and manipulation of
these, uses huge chunks of computer memory. If your computer is up to it,
fine, but if not, I suggest you go the conceptual route and represent shrubs
and trees by the most appropriate symbolic shape. Lollipops, pyramids,
spears, spikes etc. These shapes can be as complex as you see fit and it's
surprising how appropriate they are to the design process.
4) Combining AutoCAD with its sister rendering software, 3D Studio Viz gives
the capability of adding textures, materials and other effects to every
component of your landscape (some of this can also be done in AutoCAD). This
includes the effects of light and shade at any time of day and any day of
the year. From this added data input you can, once again, view your site
from any angle etc. An added bonus is that you can then create a short
animation commonly known as a 'walk-through' whereby you can set the camera
on a path through your site and visualise every vista along the way.
Specifically, you can use this to enable a child's view or the view whilst
sitting down at a particular bench or whilst swimming in the pool for
example.
5) Like all things, the output is only as good as the input. By this I mean
that, if you are a good and quick artist combined with good horticultural
knowledge and a 'feel' for design, then you are very lucky and you are the
'bees knees' of garden design and I, and many others, are extremely jealous.
Even in this situation it is unlikely that you, the designer, will get it
right first time. Equally, the client, or you again if this is DIY, will not
easily be satisfied with first efforts and also change their mind at the
most inopportune moment. CAD can accommodate these variances more easily
than the, by now, frustrated artist.
6) Garden Design is dynamic by the very nature of the growing habits of the
ingredients of the design - except for hard landscaping of course. Imagine
having to repaint sketches for every year of a ten year 'design life-cycle'.
CAD can accommodate these growth variances with greater ease. With some 3D
'plant' elements, you can even add growth rates although I don't personally
advocate this since it doesn't take into account pruning and training along
the way.
7) Conclusion - (At last, they cry)
If this a small scale DIY exercise, then use your powers of sketching to
experiment with different ideas but don't forget the view from the bedroom
window, for instance. Your powers of imagination will see you through.
If it is a large project or one of many, then either invest in the CAD
software or pass your own sketches onto someone who has these facilities.
(This is NOT a sales pitch, I am only a student ! ). The resultant drawings
will form the backbone to future amendments and construction/planting of
your plan and will be equally useful whether you DIY or sub contract the
work.
Good luck and let me know if I can help further.
Peter
PS - I did warn you that this might be long winded!
********************************************************
MARTINGUY <mart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991217083646...@ng-da1.aol.com...
cormaic
<pe...@gardenvision.demon.co.uk> enriched all our lives with these
words:
>2) If you have a 3D AutoCAD programme - (it sounded as though Cormaic had
>the 2D version, otherwise he wouldn't have needed Tubocad which is rather a
>different 'animal'), you can visulise your garden or landscape site from any
>angle at virtually the click of a button.
Too bloody right! The 2D R14 gives me enough headaches.
Personally, I fing TurboCAD much more user-freindly and intuitive,
especially at the scale and complexity level I normally work at. With
TCad, I can knock out the same plan in about 2/3 of the time that it
would take me with ACad, but as I say, these are simple, 1:100
glorified floor plans designed to be printed out on a single sheet of
A4 to give clients a good visual representation of the finished
hard-landscaping.
>3) Whilst the available library of 3D plants, shrubs and trees is improving
>day by day, (Keyscape for instance), the insertion and manipulation of
>these, uses huge chunks of computer memory. If your computer is up to it,
>fine, but if not, I suggest you go the conceptual route and represent shrubs
>and trees by the most appropriate symbolic shape. Lollipops, pyramids,
>spears, spikes etc. These shapes can be as complex as you see fit and it's
>surprising how appropriate they are to the design process.
I find that it's much better to stick to simple scaled
geometric shapes such as cones or spheres, as it's just not worth the
effort of detailing each plant to elaborate degrees. An extruded green
rectangle is a decent enough representation of a hedge; half-spheres
in different colours and different sizes to represent low-growing
stuff, cones for conifers (obviously). The detail comes in the
labelling.
8<---S-N-I-P--->8
I agree completely with all you say, but how far will this
branch of CAD develop? Some of the paving manufacturers are now giving
away a bare-bones cad proggy that enable you to plan the layout of
your garden, albeit with only their own paving materials. As an
ex-contractor, I know just how much work we won because we were the
only paving contractor to supply every job with a full-colour plan,
rather than a price scribbled on the back of a fag packet with a
mobile phone nr. There is a market for 3D CAD in the landscaping
industry, but it's from the bods who want to plan their garden or plot
out their new driveway and patio, the commercial and industrial scale
projects are, for the time being at least, still better appreciated
and understood in model form, as even a 23" monitor can't do a CAD
plan real justice.
A simple, all-purpose 3D CAD engine, that can slap down a deck
or a driveway with a few clicks of a mouse, that can drag'n'drop
walls, bbq's, pergolas, etc to give a 'general impression', has
fantastic selling-power, not just for hard-landscapers and paving
co's, but for the rapidly growing number of garden designers.
So far, what has been generally available is pretty tame and
disappointing, but I have great hopes. 3D virtual-reality design is
the way forward for this industry.
--
cormaic Garden - www.tmac.clara.co.uk/cormaic/garden/garden.htm
Culcheth Paving - www.tmac.clara.co.uk/paving2.htm
Cheshire URG web-ring - www.tmac.clara.co.uk/urgring/urgring1.htm
(allegedly) Last Updated on Dec 10th 1999
cormaic CAN BE FOUND AT tmac.clara.co.uk
Rod Craddock
> Too bloody right! The 2D R14 gives me enough headaches.
Does any landscaping pay well enough to afford or justify Autocad R14 and
the expensive add-ons?
Rod
Badger
"Rod Craddock" <r...@gw4slk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:83ohlf$quf$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Does any landscaping pay well enough to afford or justify Autocad R14 and
> the expensive add-ons?
>
design work do we?" usually followed by an enquiry about how the plans for
this or that garden are coming on <groan> All our designs are done the
oldfashioned way on a drawing board that was being thrown away.
--
Pete The Gardener
A room without books is like a body without a soul
pete_the...@hotmail.com
http://members.xoom.com/pete_the_g/index.htm
Rod Craddock
We certainly cann't justify that sort of money, but then we "don't do any
design work do we?" usually followed by an enquiry about how the plans for
this or that garden are coming on <groan> All our designs are done the
> oldfashioned way on a drawing board that was being thrown away.
--
> Pete The Gardener
> A room without
Sounds familiar Pete.
I'm playing with TurboCad 5, managed to draw a new area we are planting just
to see if I could do it, but in the end I'm back to sketching the plants in
on the computer generated outline. One nice thing though is that TC lets me
tile the drawing sheets so I can print at any scale I want but I got bored
clicking in ericas at 30 cm spacing so back to making it up as I go along.
Rod
cormaic
<r...@gw4slk.freeserve.co.uk> enriched all our lives with these words:
>
>> Too bloody right! The 2D R14 gives me enough headaches.
>
>
>Does any landscaping pay well enough to afford or justify Autocad R14 and
>the expensive add-ons?
>
Only at commercial scale, not for your average 2-man band
landscaper. I bought it although, had my business partner not been
more than happy to give me carte blanche when it comes to anything
vaguely technical, I would have had a hell of a job justifying the
cost.
I found difficulty importing ACad drawings supplied by
architects into TCad, even via DXF, so I was more or less obliged to
buy ACad, just to read their work. It is, unjustly IMHO, the industry
standard, but I'm hoping that the Open Drawing Format being promoted
by almost every CAD producer *except*, of course, AutoDesk Inc, will
see it's near monopolisation of construction industry draughting
brought to an end.
For designing a garden, ACad is *far* too complex.
Rod Craddock
> landscaper. I bought it although, had my business partner not been
> more than happy to give me carte blanche when it comes to anything
> vaguely technical, I would have had a hell of a job justifying the
> cost.
> I found difficulty importing ACad drawings supplied by
> architects into TCad, even via DXF, so I was more or less obliged to
> buy ACad, just to read their work. It is, unjustly IMHO, the industry
> standard, but I'm hoping that the Open Drawing Format being promoted
> by almost every CAD producer *except*, of course, AutoDesk Inc, will
> see it's near monopolisation of construction industry draughting
> brought to an end.
> For designing a garden, ACad is *far* too complex.
>
> --
> cormaic
Pretty much the conclusion I've come to, because I'm only working for one
client so to speak and they get what I give 'em, I really don't need to do
much in the way of paper plans so I'm just trying to learn TCad for my own
interest. The picture of what things will be like in 10/20/50 years etc are
in my head. Nobody believes me anyway, whether they would be more believable
if they were on paper is another matter.
BTW what output devices do you use for TCad?
I have a nice A3 pen plotter but nobody makes drivers for W98 for it which
is a shame, though I'm still looking.
Rod
cormaic
<r...@gw4slk.freeserve.co.uk> enriched all our lives with these words:
8<---S-N-I-P--->8
>BTW what output devices do you use for TCad?
>I have a nice A3 pen plotter but nobody makes drivers for W98 for it which
>is a shame, though I'm still looking.
>
Just a dirt cheap, bottom of the range HP Deskjet 400 that the
kids bought for me a couple of years ago, and you can guarantee they
didn't spend more than 50 quid between them! It's ideal for A4
printouts, which, for most residential landscaping projects, is more
than adequate. Sometimes, on the 'back-yard' type of jobs, I have to
up the scale to 1:50 to make the job look worthwhile - 12 m2 of block
paving looks lost at 1:100 on an A4 sheet. :~)
If I have to print out A1 drawings for the luddites in the
construction trade, I get them done via a local printshop for a
tenner, all of which goes onto the clients' bill, whether they know it
or not. :~)