[PSUscaper]

Hello,

While at the MANTS show a few weeks ago, I picked up a copy of dynascape and have had a free trial run at it.

Well.....so far.........I'm not very happy.

Perhaps its the strong CAD background that is causing my frustration. Basically, the drawing program is 'cad like', yet leaves much to be desired.

Drawing processes seem very, very tedious compared to CAD. It is very window based.......not many 'quick cuts'. The screen layout is very messy. Not very organized. My main goal is always speed........dyna seems to require many more steps in order to achieve the same results. Its like the 'grand central station of window popups'...........by the time you get all the command windows you need to perform a task, you can't even see the drawing.

Some very nice features though. The tie in with the quote writer program 'iris' is terrific, but again, seems like a lot of work to make it happen.

Perhaps if I were to spend the time, I'm sure it would speed things up, but not sure if I want to invest that. The time you save in buiding a bid/estimate sheet, is lost in the time it takes to render the drawing. Seems like a wash to me.

Also,,,,,,,it seems to have HUGE problems importing and exporting drawings from dwg to its own version........this is a MAJOR problem if you work with a lot of engineers and architects.......Basically, its worthless for this. If you use dynascape..........don't plan on transferring to other formats!

Bottom line on Dynascape.........

If you have never used CAD..........then all its flaws would be unnoticeable and you would assume that the way things are done are the only way they could be done.

If you are a experienced CAD user................you won't be happy. As 'CAD LIKE' they say it is, it has a LONG way to go.

As a all-in-one program, proabably a decent choice.......as for a drafting program.............stick with CAD.

[diginahole]

Thanks for the review Penn. I had planned on having a better look a Dynascapes at the LO Congress this year but unfortunately was unable to attend. I know Dynascapes offers training for their software but it is quite pricey. The Cad software I use allows keyboard entry of all the commands. This is my preferred method. I don't like having the desktop cluttered up with tool icons. There are only a few commands I use the icons for. I may have to have them send me a demo copy so I can have a gander myself even though I'm sure I would be uncomfortable with it as you are. I have seen some nice drawings produced with Dynascapes by a medium to high end design/ build firm in my area. It seems to be quite popular here in Ontario.

[Bill Schwab]

The CLCA is giving away copies of DIG software, a 700.00 value for being a member.

I'm signed up for the class to leaqrn the program, cost $95.00.

I am not at all big on computer assisted design, as most programs are so labor intensive they don't weigh out over drawing the old fashioned way...I had heard people raving over thie DIG program however...It will be interesting!

[agla]

I am also quite proficient in ACAD and have to agree with Penn. I have not demoed Dynascape, but have seen a couple of exhibition CD's.

I used Landcadd with Landscape Designer, Quantity Takeoff, and Colorfast. If you are a proficient CAD person, the "user friendly" landscape specific things only walk you through a series of choices. That is great if you have not gotten past a certain learning curve, but terribly slow if you have. The quantity take off sounds great, until you have errant blocks on top of each other or frozen layers, ... I find it pretty easy to count plant symbols and benefit from the close scrutiny you have to give the plan when counting. Most CAD programs will give you an area of a closed line in a couple of seconds (for patios, walks, lawns, ...).

I would also agree with Penn that, if you are not past a certain learning curve in CAD, these are programs that can get you doing a decent looking plan with a short amount of learning. Dynascape has built in some helpful features to get a rookie plan looking better, not the least of which is some default line weights which go a long way toward taking the robot look out of a plan.

I think it all really depends on what your current abilities are, how much training you are willing to endure, and what you really want out of the program. ... and if you need to bring in engineer, surveyor, or architect drawings in to work on or with.

[Paul]

I really think most landscape packages that are being sold now days fight for the new designer that has never used cad. Others are looking for packages that will work in larger offices that don't run the stronger cad packages. Some have features that you can turn on and off as you need them. Larger companies might have one LA or designer but have someone in the office that might not have the experience in a real cad program but need to have the basics put on the computer. Then the designer might have them print it out, and draw what he wants on the plan, leaving the younger (read cheaper) person flush it out. Leaving the LA to clean up the plan. Also programs like Iris add on, make controlling cost much easier. Their standard plants are already plugged in and with few changes the proposal is ready to go.

LA Firms have different rules that they follow and the larger ones (at least in our area) have lots of younger people that "draw" all day. They also don't have to worry about pricing the job out. Most times they are giving a ball park figure to their customers.

Yes packages like Landcad are great but the cost of a full Auto cad plus Landcad on top. limits it to larger firms.

[DynaSCAPEr]

Hi there,

First, let me introduce myself. I’m a Garden Graphics employee, specifically the development lead behind DynaSCAPE. One of our users directed us to your post, and I’d like to take the time to address the issues you’ve all mentioned.

First of all, thank you for the frank comments in relation to our software. While DynaSCAPE is CAD, it is definitely not AutoCAD. There are many times where popup windows are used to collect input for commands – that’s how our CAD engine works. However, there are also many useful time saving features in DynaSCAPE that aren’t present in AutoCAD – this can be attributed to AutoCAD’s more architectural focus. Pennscapes, you yourself have posted in another thread mentioning that “line weight takes time” in reference to AutoCAD – in our opinion DynaSCAPE’s pre-set line weights are a big improvement over the way AutoCAD works. What we’ve tried to do is to provide a complete solution for Landscape Design/Build, and we’re quite proud of what we’ve achieved to that end. However, you are absolutely right in pointing out the difficulties we’re having with DWG and DXF – and I’ll even go out on a limb and say that if strict DWG/DXF compatibility is an absolute requirement for you, then DynaSCAPE may not be the best product for you – not just yet. It is up to the individual user to decide whether our features are enough to offset any weaknesses our product(s) may have. We believe that our output is DynaSCAPE’s strongest selling feature. I would suggest printing out one of our sample drawings and comparing it with your own designs.

Here at Garden Graphics we take user feedback seriously – the good and the bad. We recognize the need for better support for the higher end Landscape Architect, and suffice it to say we will be working hard to provide more of that support in the near future. We have our own design studio on site and you can be assured that we’re doing our best to put the most landscape design/build specific intelligence into our software – to help you from end to end. Our focus is not on sales, it’s on building good tools for the industry. We’ve even stayed clear from some of the ‘flashy’ features our competition focuses on, because we don’t feel they convey the quality and professionalism that both your and our designers need. We recognize the need for end to end support, not only the design side, but also estimation, customer management and job costing – and we feel this is where our products excel. We’re reading the books by Huston and VanderKooi, listening to your comments, and above all trying to supply tools to make your business(es) better.

When someone purchases a product from us, they’re buying into our ‘think tank’. Every one of us has been involved in the green industry at one point or another – people like you are the ones behind the products we’re developing. I personally just returned from CENTS in Columbus Ohio – not because I needed to be there, but because I want to know what designers and landscapers want and more importantly need to get out of any software solution. In a nutshell, what I’m trying to say is “stay tuned.” We’re in this for the long haul – we’re completely committed to helping improve the green industry as a whole. That might sound overdramatic, but we don’t believe in selling anything that you don’t want, don’t need, or that doesn’t benefit your business. Thanks for taking the time to comment, and thanks for giving us a look – just don’t make the mistake of giving up on us just yet.

Regards,

Fred Vandervelde.

[agla]

Fred,

I do have to say that out of all of the landscape specific CAD packages, your's appears to be designed by landscape designers much more than by computer geeks.

A couple of years ago I got a promo CD from your company at New England Grows. I liked the way that the line weights were preset to help new CAD people get a better looking drawing from the get go. There were lots of user friendly and landscape specific tools in there. I could see it being a very effective system for most design/builds.

Another thing that I really liked was the Quotewriter program that came with it. I noticed that it got dropped on last years CD, but you built it up into a much more extensive estimation program, IRIS. I still use Quotewriter for some plant installation proposals.

Dynascape looks like it fits the niche of a self contained design/build landscape company quite well. By self contained, I mean drawings that start and finish in house by staff whose primary responsibilities are to design and estimate (rather than becoming super ACAD drafters). I think that is a very large segment of the market whose needs are not met by a stripped CAD program with a steep learning curve.

For those of us that have worked extensively with ACAD, need to exchange files back and forth with other design professionals, and have developed drawing standards that streamline the process, such a program is not for us. But, we are served by other companies that leave out the people whose needs you address.

I like what you do.


PS. I have pre-assigned line weights to screen colors as an office standard which means that I never have to think about line weights never mind draw with them. But, that is not something a new CAD user is going to do without considerable training.

[DynaSCAPEr]

Thanks again for the feedback - I completely agree with you in regards to the DynaSCAPE niche. However, I also believe that advanced ACAD users like yourself are not served "well" by those other companies - and this is something we hope to address very soon. We'd like to bring our particular flavor of design intelligence to users like yourself who already have a tremendous investment in the leading CAD platform - in a way that the "computer geeks' behind that CAD platform never could. If you don't mind my asking - what types of landscape design specific things do you:

a) wish you could do with AutoCAD,

or

b) wish were easier to do with AutoCAD?

Thanks,

Fred

P.S. Your line weight solution sounds acceptable (maybe even good, but I still like drawing on my nicely named pre-set layers which have an associated line weight - I will admit I'm a little biased...

[agla]

Two years ago I had the opportunity to work for a design/build that did not yet have CAD. I wound up selecting Landcadd with a few modules including Landscape Design. After a few months I found it much easier and faster to rely just on the CAD engine. It took to long to select blocks and set attributes. that would be my number one complaint. I also found that the rendering program (colorfast) needed way too much layer management and preparation (closed polylines) to be used past a conceptual plan. I have also used a rendering program called m-color with the same hoops.

I now keep a collection of plant blocks sized at 1' diameter. I keep the complete set (over 140) in a drawing that I insert into the drawing that I am working on. That way all I do is type "insert" enter, p19 (for example), click where I want it, hit the number on the keyboard for the diameter I want it, then enter, enter, enter, and there it is. I simply copy the symbol each time I want another. That takes about 4 seconds.

Another thing that I do is use the measure command for cobbles, stonewalls, etc,... It is all done by rote after a while.

The same holds true for line weights. My plot configurations have different line weights assigned to different colors. When I draw a house, it is yellow or magenta, text is white or red, a patio hatch is going to be color 11. I never have to convert lines to polylines and assign them a width. It becomes quite automatic. If I decide that something needs to be emphasized, I simply change the color by property or layer.

In short, after formal training in CAD, several years in an engineers office, and formal training in landscape graphics, I am able to do all those things that the landscape programs do by just using ACAD.

As far as quantity takeoffs go, I found that I need to count out items that appear on a plan for two reasons. Number one is that it forces close scrutiny that can sometimes find other flaws in the drawing. The other is that sometimes a block or several may be on top of one another or out in left field somewhere. When that happens, items will be counted that do not belong in the pricing. Areas are easy to measure in any CAD program.

Another thing that bothered me was that plant keys showed all the plant symbols the same size, while they were different sizes in the plan.

The one thing that I liked that I do not have are custom line routines such as one to make a good looking hedge out of a closed polyline. I have gottn around that with a nicer looking plant block that I run along a line using the measure command.

Again, I think that Dynascape looks like a better program for someone that will not have the opportunity to get to a level in ACAD that some of us have.

Not that many landscape contractors are going to use paper space, redefine user coordinate systems, use xref, or even start with an engineers dwg as a base plan. But for those of us that do, we can't be without the complete confidence that all will function smoothly.

I have found that Intellicad, a lower cost clone of ACAD, does not function well outside of the world coordinate system, and sometimes does funny things with multiple layered blocks. I think that when using ACAD, we all know what we have and how it behaves, and we always run into obstacles with other programs. That is why it will be difficult get ACAD users to convert.

To those trying to decide which way to go, I would stear you very clear of trying to become proficient at ACAD from a night class and learning on your own. There is way too much to learn without constant tutoring from very experienced people. A program like Dynascape will get you doing nice plans with a lot less trouble.

[DynaSCAPEr]

Thanks again agla - I'm sure there are more people out there in a similar situation to your own. I have many of my own ideas about how we could provide something of value that would be useful to people like yourself - I just can't actually comment on them yet. On another note, I did review IntelliCAD a little while back, and all I can say is *yuck*. The open-source low cost idea is great, but the implementation of it suffers in the same way that many other open source projects do. Let's just say Autodesk has market share for a reason. They make great products - even if they are somewhat anal with regards to allowing others to read/write their file formats.

Later,

F