OK guys, I know. Just seems that sometimes a simple question sets off a firestorm. I enjoy trying to visualize projects before I bring out the shovels. I use Showoff, Photoshop, and even Paint to take a photo of the area I am fooling around with and trying different combinations of things until something clicks. It doesn't even have to be a true representation of the specific plants- sometimes just drawing out some bones and different shapes to balance things can be incredibly helpful to me. I choose my exterior colors this way, my roof color, bed placement, plants groupings, hardscapes, and so on. So while such novice timewasting might be useless to someone trained in the art of landscape design it can be incredibly useful to someone who is not. I know what I like but can't always call it right up- I need to finagle things on paper/screen before I commit. If we want to play with it what's the harm? Some of us enjoy the process of learning what works and what doesn't work and while of course not every eventual problem will show up on a simple program, some things do work this way. I don't want to hire someone to make decisions for me, and them bam do an installation and it's done. I want to continue to work the area and improve it in a way that pleases me and satisfies my own needs while at the same time providing me a fun hobby. I want it to look great, too, but I want it to be my creation. I'm way off course and apologize for butting in. But I still say it's fun to play around with the programs available even if they aren't 100% accurate or fluent in teaching design.

What if, Worm, no decent professional landscape designer or architect would touch your software package with a 10 foot pole? That would mean ... uh ... that those who have used your software of choice would all be ... uh ... homeowners and DIY garden designers. Except the experienced, creative homeowner garden designers probably wouldn't touch the program either. If you want someone to tell you the program is great, then, okay, I volunteer. It's wonderful. It solved every problem I've ever had. Well, I couldn't really figure out what the heck I was doing, but I'm assured by people in the know that my work with this program is a strong example of what it can do. Now, you have several responses in this thread from real pros and real experienced homeowners, some of whom have also taken design courses. They are in the cutting edge of landscape design. One said put "software" in the search box. You said you put the program name in and got nothing. Doesn't that tell you something ... There is a pretty good chance that there are real drawbacks to these tools ... Not just specifically, but generally. Part of the problem has to do with the way that photos trick the eye and create overly two-dimensional representations. They are too divorced from what happens on the ground. So, I'd still recommend putting "software" in the search box of this forum. Some of the discussions were at some length. Once you know the basic weaknesses of these programs, your own comfort and expertise with software evaluation should help you to know whether Realtime landscaping photo makes sense for your needs.

Reno has a good summary of the development of CAD/CADD from the mid 80s or so. AutoCad, for example, started as a 2-D drafting program for engineering applications. It was much later that they bolted on programs that would allow 2-D architectural applications (for example, the intersection of intersecting walls in plan view with the intersections deleted). 3-D came much, much later for AutoCad, and initially consisted of an add-on program from other vendors, if I remember correctly. Early 3-D programs were mostly wiring diagrams which were hard to see and visualize, much less solid 3-d pictures. DataCad and other early programs were designed from the beginning for architectural design; the 2-D and 3-D was integrated earlier, but these vendors lacked the financial and marketing resoures of AutoCad. Then European software vendors entered the marketplace for both engineering and architectural users, with advanced features like finite analysis and light-ray applications. As the market developed, and low-cost computing emerged, applications began to focus on data base/relational applications and designing for architect in 3-D, rather than starting in 2-D and merging to 3-D. All of this is probably far beyond this forum for consumers interested in building their own home! The good news for most who visit this forum and thread is that a few of the major software manufacturers of engineering and architectural software have also marketed simplified versions of their software that will do 2-D and 3-D applications ranging from decks, to landscaping to fully integrated house design at reasonable expense. The bad news is that none of the software is "smart" enough to prevent mistakes and errors in the input process. It still takes substantial experience and judgement to make these computerized tools work efficiently and effectively. Good luck!

I do but I'm not a MAC user : /