[Bill Schwab]

Ah. But, when the rendering is presented to the court, it is pretty easy to see that the rendering looks one way, and when the person suing you comes in, their photo looks different. I kn ow I know, that is idiocy, but it is what goes on during a trial. A few of the guys who accepted that software as I did in our association have had the same feedback. You ge the job, then complete it, and the owner becomes anal and used the rendering to argue the job does not look the same, and in the process holds money. Each gripe is handled in a different way, but the one common thing is that the owner, dissatisfied in the ways I have just mentioned, holds money. I.E. screws cash flow. People here file lawsuites because someone planted a tree in the yard next to them that blocks their view, so if you get my drift, that is what goes on.

I think you might have hit something John. 75% of every landscape in the area is hardscape, 25% is plantings because there is no real property, the houses sit on postage stamps.. So, when you dupe the hardscape into Designware, make the curves and so fourth, the lines look pretty ragged. Add the plants, which, the version we were all given was designed with California plants specifically, you have a rendering that, well, looks almost like a Monet, but not quite like a Gogan.

In my personal dealings with imaging programs, I have found that if I have to produce a digital image to sell a job, as a rule, that person is going to be one of those touchy feely types who has had to have their hanjd held through the entire job. So, needless to say, I'm not using it anymore.