Another thing that this thread keeps bringing back to the surface of my memory is that as a student (both in my early 20s and again in my mid 30s) it was surprising how many concepts were really difficult to understand. Many of these were those that seemed like the teacher was wading in nonsense until finally something broke through after much of the semester passed and the "Aha moment" finally hit. That is after several weeks of the same subject for six hours a week with direct interaction with both teachers and other students while working on excercises directly designed to get you to that "aha moment". That just points out the difficulty in teaching landscape design in short courses and especially in all in one comprehensive classes. You brush the surface of many subjects, but you can not expect to instill a great deal of knowledge in any of them. Classes like botany, geology, dendrology, soils, sociology, psychology, biology, and such were all taught in the usuaul 1 hour lecture hall twice or thrice a week format with some classes having a two hour lab. Design studio was three hours long three times a week with on going projects that kept students busy well into the night for their sophomore,junior, and senior years. Plant design, drafting & graphics, grading & drainage, and site engineering all met six hours a week with on going projects. There was a studio for each class year because we all had these on going projects that required the teaching and critiques to be done where we were working. This stuff was all taught through multiple projects that made us work through concepts and develop understanding. They were not taught in lecture halls because you could not get the same understanding from that format. It is not rocket science and it is not a gift. But it is a lot more conceptual than informational. While classes like geology and soil science are largely based on information which you can absorb through reading and lectures, design is not that way. You never get THE answer because there is no single answer. There are so many ways to get to a suitable conclusion that it takes having to go through a whole lot of excercises in doing things the way that you would not do them based solely on your own instincts in order to learn new things or potential pitfalls that you would not learn from going with your own way. In the end, you've done so many things in so many different ways that you can't help but to have learned to recognise situations and have learned a number of ways to address them. Those ways to address things are not off of a list, but based on experience and what you have developed as methods that you have become comfortable with and work well for you. It is still your own creativity and and style that drives everything, but you have more ways that you are comfortable with applying that creativity and more knowledge to go with it. The problem that most self taught people have is that they work within their own comfort zone. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it has a high limitation on it. That limitation is that there is very little outside influences in either recognizing unfamiliar situations or in getting comfortable with other ways of dealing with things. One of my teachers, Professor Toru Otawa, would constantly say "you could do a master's thesis on that subject" when someone asked a question. Of course, he would answer the question, but we also could see what he meant by saying that. Most of us stay within our comfort zone once we get out and do this after school and after interning. The difference is that we were forced into situations that made us develop a wider comfort zone. I don't know how much sense this makes to a lot of people who have not gone through this. I expect that those who have will agree with this and those that have not will find a pile of reasons why this is not as good as the way they learned (I think that was standard rule #1 of messageboard posters that I mentioned very early in this thread).

I'm a pro and there are several programs that get used in the industry. Of course AutoCad is still the primary floor plan maker with Revit becoming it's possible replacement. They both have their strengths. AutoCad is great in that beginning phase where you are still working out a floor plan and is still the most comfortable for me to use, where Revit is superior in the phase where you are already solidifying items like windows. Revit also is superior in 3d because it builds a 3d environment as well as sections etc while you are building the floor plan. Autcocad's 3d is unintuitive and difficult to learn. As far as 3d software, Sketchup is that great first place you visit where you are trying to work out massing and check proportions etc. It looks very cartoonish and unfinished unless you use a 3rd party renderer. Google recently took away the ability to import dwg into the program unless you purchase the pro version. 3ds Max is becoming the standard for 3d rendering because it is so lifelike. However, it's terribly time consuming and expensive to purchase. I haven't heard of Solidworks being used for Interior Design because there are better programs that will help visual spaces better. They are a better fit for Engineers and Product Designers. I haven't heard of alias or wavefront.

Do you have a PC or a Mac? Some people use IKEA software and some use SketchUP, both of which, I think are free. I really like the Chief Architect softwares, which I think are user friendly. Different versions vary in price, depending on the features you want/need. Some do construction calculations, and also landscaping design work, but some are more about interiors, and cost less. Also, older versions cost less, and those are usually available on Amazon, etc. However, Chief Architect is a Windows based software, so won't work on a Mac without Windows installed. I found it VERY helpful in designing our house to be able to do layouts and see my ideas in 3D. Somethings that seemed good in my head didn't look at all good in 3D, so I could've had a very bad surprise had I not seen it first. It also enabled me to tweak colors and other design and function details until they were the best I could manage. I got to really know my kitchen space before it even existed. One of my first ideas, seen from different angles: Plan Renderings, trying different materials and colors: Current Result for comparison: There are also elevation types of renderings for more clarity on details: And the floorplans look like this:

When looking for a designer, I would look for a Landscape Architect** or Landscape Designer specifically. A good outdoor designer, will consider issues of drainage, underground and overhead utilities, soil, planting, microclimates, and other existing site conditions when determining the placement, size and function of your outdoor space. **Depending on where you live, a Registered Landscape Architect may be significantly more expensive. Some states and provinces protect the title "Landscape Architect" and require specific registration exams, university degree requirements, and work experience to be called a Landscape Architect. If you are in one of these locations, a good, local, landscape designer may be more feasible financially for a residential yard design.