We're thinking of a major redesign of our back garden. We started looking
for a design(CAD) package. There seem to be a lot out there in webland,
but none of them seem to get rave reviews. What have you tried? Did it do
what you wanted? and lastly, would you recommend it to a fellow usenet
newsgrouper?

Cheers!

On Feb 21, 2:07*pm, (Brian) wrote:
We're thinking of a major redesign of our back garden. We started looking
for a design(CAD) package. There seem to be a lot out there in webland,
but none of them seem to get rave reviews. What have you tried? Did it do
what you wanted? and lastly, would you recommend it to a fellow usenet
newsgrouper?

Cheers!

http://www.tmac.clara.co.uk/urgring/faqsoftw.htm
Don't know if it's up to date though.

Amongst the comments given, I'd add that the measurementation can't be
trusted.
My old one, which fested my computer with nothing but problems, was
the sierra (pro) and no, I would wish it on you.

Along with the question as to whether one really needs such software,
I would like to know from you why you do? What are you expecting other
than the relative pleasure of mucking about with it?
It won't measure the garden for you.
It may give tree growth dimensions in say, 10 years time, but these
probably wont take root development into account (nor soil/water
shortage/excess)
It wont actually inspire you and may even limit your potential to the
rather limited variations it'll have for say, walls, fences, arches
etc..
In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

In article
,
(aquachimp) wrote:


In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and then to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

"Brian" wrote
We're thinking of a major redesign of our back garden. We started looking
for a design(CAD) package. There seem to be a lot out there in webland,
but none of them seem to get rave reviews. What have you tried? Did it do
what you wanted? and lastly, would you recommend it to a fellow usenet
newsgrouper?


This has been discussed often on this Ng and the consensus has always been
that other than the professional type programs (at considerable cost) they
are rubbish, toys only.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

On 21/2/09 16:00, in article ,
"Brian" wrote:

In article
,
(aquachimp) wrote:


In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and then to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

The subject has come up a few times over the years here. The overall view
seems to be that you're just as well off with a pad of paper and a stub of
pencil. I can well see that it's fun to plan it as you suggest but I think
that most people start on their garden and then go "hang on a minute, over
there would be better for the sandpit/washing line/pergola/gazebo etc" and
it all gets changed. Then, having done your planting, which for many
gardeners consists of wandering around with x numbers of pots plonking them
down, picking them up and moving them somewhere else, you tend to find that
you really do have to find a bit of space for 3 or 5 or 9 of whatever-it-is
that caught your eyes in the local nursery today!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Perennials & shrubs online

On Feb 21, 5:59*pm, (Brian) wrote:
In article
,

(aquachimp) wrote:
In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and then *to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

Ah yes, jiggling around is easier than on paper, though there may be
an argument that the greater difficulty of paper causes one to 'think'
more and so creates greater room for potential advancement.

There of course the other aspects of garden design. There are those
terms , like balance and continuity, 9etc) which I can't say I've seen
software trying to tackle.
Ditto with the use of colour, or lack of, nor stuff like the golden
ration or fibonacci sequences and there's more.

And here's one I doubt you'll have ever even heard of;
It something I used to do when presented with a garden acclaimed to be
a certain type of garden, e.g. a representation of an authentic
Japanese garden, or an English Cottage garden, a 'natural' landscape,
and so on.
I had already studied these long enough to be able to 'see' invisible
qualities and patterns. So, what I 'saw' each time were numbers and
letters.

I don't know why, but I'd 'see' these gardens as a sort of (usually)
square shaped picture and consisting of just numbers and letters.

In the case of the Jap. garden, I would picture it as having a base
line 9botom sixth) made up of a small scattering of even numbers with
the majority of that base space taken up consonants.
Beyond that base, there were odd numbers and quite a number of vowels
and in fairly specific places.
Cottage gardens were mostly even numbers with consonants making up a
general background base (in this case the "base" is like a first coat
of paint).

The thing is, creations representing 'authentic' garden type always
came up with the same pattern of numbers and letters no matter how
different the gardens themselves within each category might be.

I used to try and work out why I was able to 'see' like this and why.
I wondered if my interpretation (which is what I viewed it as) related
to a context that I couldn't actually see in each garden but caused a
reaction personal to me. That meant I wanted to check if others could
do something similar so occasionally I'd ask someone if they wouldn't
mind indulging me by, naming a particular tree by a number. But these
never worked. they'd want to know what I meant by a number. I'd say,
any number and how it's a bit like seeing someone called Max and
saying yeah, the name suits, so, "see that tree, what number do you
think would suit it in the same way".
It never worked, they couldn't grasp what I was getting at {maybe you
can't either(-:}

But that all just to underline the difference with the human mind and
garden software.

have fun

In article , (Bob
Hobden) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* "Bob Hobden"
*Date:* Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:09:50 -0000

"Brian" wrote
We're thinking of a major redesign of our back garden. We started
looking
for a design(CAD) package. There seem to be a lot out there in
webland,
but none of them seem to get rave reviews. What have you tried?
Did it do
what you wanted? and lastly, would you recommend it to a fellow
usenet
newsgrouper?


This has been discussed often on this Ng and the consensus has
always been that other than the professional type programs (at
considerable cost) they are rubbish, toys only.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden






That's pretty much the conclusion we had drawn. A pity really, something
like SoldWorks for gardeners would be fantastic.. but at what price ;-)

Many thanks.

Cheers!

In article
,
(aquachimp) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* aquachimp
*Date:* Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:19:37 -0800 (PST)

On Feb 21, 5:59*pm, (Brian) wrote:
In article


,

(aquachimp) wrote:
In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and
I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and
then *to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

Ah yes, jiggling around is easier than on paper, though there may be
an argument that the greater difficulty of paper causes one to
'think'
more and so creates greater room for potential advancement.

There of course the other aspects of garden design. There are those
terms , like balance and continuity, 9etc) which I can't say I've
seen
software trying to tackle.
Ditto with the use of colour, or lack of, nor stuff like the golden
ration or fibonacci sequences and there's more.

And here's one I doubt you'll have ever even heard of;
It something I used to do when presented with a garden acclaimed to
be
a certain type of garden, e.g. a representation of an authentic
Japanese garden, or an English Cottage garden, a 'natural'
landscape,
and so on.
I had already studied these long enough to be able to 'see'
invisible
qualities and patterns. So, what I 'saw' each time were numbers and
letters.

I don't know why, but I'd 'see' these gardens as a sort of (usually)
square shaped picture and consisting of just numbers and letters.

In the case of the Jap. garden, I would picture it as having a base
line 9botom sixth) made up of a small scattering of even numbers
with
the majority of that base space taken up consonants.
Beyond that base, there were odd numbers and quite a number of
vowels
and in fairly specific places.
Cottage gardens were mostly even numbers with consonants making up a
general background base (in this case the "base" is like a first
coat
of paint).

The thing is, creations representing 'authentic' garden type always
came up with the same pattern of numbers and letters no matter how
different the gardens themselves within each category might be.

I used to try and work out why I was able to 'see' like this and
why.
I wondered if my interpretation (which is what I viewed it as)
related
to a context that I couldn't actually see in each garden but caused
a
reaction personal to me. That meant I wanted to check if others
could
do something similar so occasionally I'd ask someone if they
wouldn't
mind indulging me by, naming a particular tree by a number. But
these
never worked. they'd want to know what I meant by a number. I'd say,
any number and how it's a bit like seeing someone called Max and
saying yeah, the name suits, so, "see that tree, what number do you
think would suit it in the same way".
It never worked, they couldn't grasp what I was getting at {maybe
you
can't either(-:}

But that all just to underline the difference with the human mind
and
garden software.

have fun

That's a very different way of viewing things! I'm a bit more 'engineer',
and I like straight lines... but that's going to be part of the fun. Not
ending up with something that looks like Bézier got there before me. ;-)
I'm sure I could get 'phi' in there somewhere... aesthetic reasons only
of course. (or just to be awkward I'd bend that to make 'e' or root two!)

Anyway, I digress, as I've said to Sacha elsewhere in this thread, the
plan now exists on paper and is being scribbled on with pencil and
rubber.


Cheers!

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* Sacha
*Date:* Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:13:34 +0000

On 21/2/09 16:00, in article
,
"Brian" wrote:

In article


,
(aquachimp) wrote:


In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and
I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and
then to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

The subject has come up a few times over the years here. The
overall view
seems to be that you're just as well off with a pad of paper and a
stub of
pencil. I can well see that it's fun to plan it as you suggest
but I think
that most people start on their garden and then go "hang on a
minute, over
there would be better for the sandpit/washing line/pergola/gazebo
etc" and
it all gets changed. Then, having done your planting, which for
many
gardeners consists of wandering around with x numbers of pots
plonking them
down, picking them up and moving them somewhere else, you tend to
find that
you really do have to find a bit of space for 3 or 5 or 9 of
whatever-it-is
that caught your eyes in the local nursery today!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Perennials & shrubs online


Well, the plan is complete, and printed out a few times... since then
it's been pencil and rubber ;-)

Very many thanks.

Cheers!

On 21/2/09 22:00, in article ,
"Brian" wrote:

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* Sacha
*Date:* Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:13:34 +0000

On 21/2/09 16:00, in article
,
"Brian" wrote:

In article


,
(aquachimp) wrote:


In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and
I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and
then to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

The subject has come up a few times over the years here. The
overall view
seems to be that you're just as well off with a pad of paper and a
stub of
pencil.
snip

Well, the plan is complete, and printed out a few times... since then
it's been pencil and rubber ;-)

Very many thanks.

Cheers!

Let us know how you get on, won't you? ;-)

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Perennials & shrubs online

In article ,
Brian wrote:
In article , (Bob
Hobden) wrote:

We're thinking of a major redesign of our back garden. We started
looking
for a design(CAD) package. There seem to be a lot out there in
webland,
but none of them seem to get rave reviews. What have you tried?
Did it do
what you wanted? and lastly, would you recommend it to a fellow
usenet
newsgrouper?

This has been discussed often on this Ng and the consensus has
always been that other than the professional type programs (at
considerable cost) they are rubbish, toys only.

That's pretty much the conclusion we had drawn. A pity really, something
like SoldWorks for gardeners would be fantastic.. but at what price ;-)

If I were being systematic, I would use something like xfig. It is
NOT a CAD package, but merely a very simple drawing package. I use
it for producing slides for courses. I use Gimp only in extremis.
xfig could almost certainly be built on a Microsoft system, but anyone
who can do that will almost certainly use Linux at home, anyway.

From the point of view of CAD/CAM, xfig is a toy. But it's intended
to tackle just the simplest tasks, rather than to handle the whole
job in a simplistic fashion, and so is useful. There are doubtless
other programs with similar properties.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

From the point of view of CAD/CAM, xfig is a toy. But it's intended
to tackle just the simplest tasks, rather than to handle the whole
job in a simplistic fashion, and so is useful. There are doubtless
other programs with similar properties.

Google Sketch Up is free, and easy to learn, or so I am told by my son.
http://sketchup.google.com/

A quick glance indicates that it's a lot more complicated than xfig,
but could well be worth trying. I can't be bothered to fire up a
Microsoft system to look.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Google Sketch Up is free, and easy to learn, or so I am told by my son.
http://sketchup.google.com/

A quick glance indicates that it's a lot more complicated than xfig,
but could well be worth trying. I can't be bothered to fire up a
Microsoft system to look.

It's used by professionals as a quick design alternative to Autocad.

DEFINITELY a lot more complicated than xfig, then. If they had a
Linux version, I might be interested, but I am not going to inflict
Microsoft upon myself just for that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , ()
wrote:

If I were being systematic, I would use something like xfig. It is
NOT a CAD package, but merely a very simple drawing package. I use
it for producing slides for courses. I use Gimp only in extremis.
xfig could almost certainly be built on a Microsoft system, but
anyone
who can do that will almost certainly use Linux at home, anyway.

Luckily this is a dual boot pc, Ubuntu and XP Pro :-) I'll have a look.
Thanks.

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* Sacha
*Date:* Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:26:26 +0000

On 21/2/09 22:00, in article
,
"Brian" wrote:

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

*Subject:* Garden design software
*From:* Sacha
*Date:* Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:13:34 +0000

On 21/2/09 16:00, in article
,
"Brian" wrote:

In article



,
(aquachimp) wrote:


In short, it wont really design squat for you. You'll have to
do
that.
You'll have to scribble down measurements. Get ideas read up on
stuff.
Walk the plot. Think.
It wont do your thinking.

HTH

Yes, we realise that. We have measured what's there already, and
I'm in
the process of turning that into an Autocad plan. That will be
our
starting point. The software it to 'jiggle' things around, and
then to
view 3D/walkthrough in say 10 years time.

Cheers!

The subject has come up a few times over the years here. The
overall view
seems to be that you're just as well off with a pad of paper and
a
stub of
pencil.
snip

Well, the plan is complete, and printed out a few times... since
then
it's been pencil and rubber ;-)

Very many thanks.

Cheers!

Let us know how you get on, won't you? ;-)

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Perennials & shrubs online


It's a small plot, so I might redraw the finished sketch and stick them
on the web.. I'll post a link here.

Cheers!