Be careful on the CAD files. There are high end design software packages that are used by architects and the CAD files might be useable - but that depends on the software and version that your architect or draftsman uses. The on-line CAD files offered with house plans (at that time we were building around 2007) were not compatible with lower end house design software like Punch - but that may have changed in the last few years. Before you spend any big bucks, you can typically order a draft set of plans that are marked not for copy. If that is available, you might want to start with a set of these so that you can review them and play around with possible changes. I bought a draft set of plans and put them into Punch and I was then able to play around with windows & doors. Floor layouts are pretty easy to create in Punch but rooflines take a lot more work. Once you get serious about building - you can then purchase the plans for copy. If you are intending to use an architect, wait until you make a selection and then work out the details. It might save you money to purchase a CAD file but it might also be a waste of money. I made the mistake of purchasing both the Copy plans and the CAD file (before we selected the builder & architect) and the CAD was a complete waste. My architect used his own method for generating plans and another architect I interviewed said that he would rather start from scratch. Our process went something like this (but there are many variants that work): - Find a plan that we like on-line. - Purchase a draft set and then start to play around with the space. Make to-scale cutouts of furniture to make sure what you have (or want) will fit in. Make sure garages and closets are big enough. try to imagine living in the house to see if the space will meet your needs - Find/select a reputable builder. Work with them on the plans you have and work cost. In our case, the builder had a lot of recommendations on how to lower the cost of building our plans. Much of these changes were wall alignments and roof lines. - Get an architect to produce a set of plans necessary to complete financing and get building permits. In our case, the builder had an architect that he offered as a pre-contract service. - Secure financing. Sign the contract which included a final set of plans - Pray that everything works out.

froghopper, OP asked about inexpensive software that would allow him to play around with floorplans. He asked for something that would allow him to do basic stuff that he could learn quickly and that would not be too expensive. You commented on the Punch 3000 Architectural program and I have to point out that I did not and would NOT have recommended Punch 3000 to someone looking for something inexpensive and easy to learn. I have even personally recommended against starting out with the Punch top-of-the-line products because they have way too many bells and whistles to be easy to learn. Plus, IMHO their top of the line stuff is too expensive for someone who just wants to play around with floorplans before taking their ideas to an architect. As a TOTAL NOVICE at CAD programs, I found Punch 5-in-1 to be extremely easy to learn and perfectly suited to doing what I wanted to do at that time... which was to play around with floor plans and look at them in 3D so I could get a better idea of what I wanted. I have never used AutoSketch or TurboCad or any other CAD program but if they are really easier for a true novice to use than Punch 5-in-1, then they would pretty much have had to be able to read my mind and draw images without me having to figure out how to input anything at all. LOL! Seriously, 5-in-1 took me less time to learn to use than powerpoint or excel and it was a whole lot more fun. After learning on Punch 5-in-1 and eventually becoming frustrated at my inability to use it to design COMPLEX elements like dormer windows and a very complex roof line, I upgraded to Punch 3000 Architectural. It probably took me several days to figure out how to use most of its features and some I never did bother with - like the "animator" that lets you make 3D video clips touring your design or "estimator" that is supposed to allow you to estimate the cost of a project. I also know that if DH had given me Punch 3000 instead of 5-in-1 to begin with, I probably would have given up in frustration. Punch 3000 was much too complex for me to have learned all at once but having mastered 5-in-1, 3000 was no longer overwhelming. Thus, I was able to use Punch 3000 to design my entire 2 story 3200 sf house... which is definitely not a simple rectangular box! It is a sprawling Victorian home with unexpected nooks and cranies, bay windows, dormer windows, a porch with shed roof that wraps around three sides, a screened side-porch with a deck above it that attaches the house to the garage, two additional upper decks/balconies and a very complex roof. Using Punch, I was able to show the fireplace, all the kitchen cabinetry and bookcases, interior doors with transoms above them, all the plumbing (including floor drains) and even indicate where ceiling fans, lights, switches and electrical outlets would be. I confess to ignoring the HV/AC tab entirely - except to keep in mind that duct chases would be necessary - but it is available if someone wants to use it. I also ignored the landscaping feature as we are trying very hard to leave the native vegetation alone as much as possible and will figure out our landscaping once the house if built. Finally, when it came time to deal with final details like gingerbread for the eaves of the house, I gave up although, supposedly, I could have designed the gingerbread using the 3D custom workshop tool. Frankly, that is one tool that I never did completely master - mostly because it scales everything in feet and when you're designing detail stuff, you usually want to do it in inches. I got tired of constantly having to pull up a calculator and convert inches to feet! I did use 3D workshop at one point to create a colonial porch column and a built-in breakfast nook that I used when trying to show DH - who has zero ability to visualize from a floorplan - what the porch and the breakfast nook would like like once built! When I took my Punch 3000 drawings to an architect to vet, he was amazed at the level of detail I was able to accomplish and ended making only a couple of very minor changes. I have no idea what program he used to create the blueprints but as far as I can see, those have almost no details that were not evident in my original Punch 3000 drawings. I'm not trying to claim that Punch 3000 is better than any of the professional autocad programs or that any professional would even want to use it. I am saying that Punch 5-in-1 is a great and inexpensive program for a non-professional with zero previous CAD experience to use and that a non-professional who starts with 5-in-1 and eventually finds it too limiting is likely to find the top of the line Punch programs will do everything a non-professional could want. All in all, I'll stand by my recommendation - and for $10 to $15 for a used program, I think it would be hard for OP to go wrong.

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!

What this discussion is really about is not drawing by hand or using a computer, it's really about what work is being done, what sort of "service" a client is getting and, most importantly, what the final result or outcome will be. Builders and designers may often work based on existing designs that they have built and are already fully resolved and stored in the computer. When a new client comes along, one of the existing computer files is called up and "reheated" or tweaked to meet the new client's wish list. When clients go to a builder/designer who charges $1/SF for services, this may be what is happening. Plus the builder/designer simply transfers any additional costs to the construction budget, where the client never sees them. For many consumers, this approach fits them perfectly. They don't want a custom designed home. All they want is an existing home that's tweaked to include their list of features. Think about what's going on: could any adult make a living, pay business expenses and reinvest in growing their business on $1/SF (or less)? How many 3,000 SF houses would such a builder need to do for annual income sufficient to stay in business and make a living for his family? That's why construction costs, and extra costs due to low allowances, provide most of the needed business income for builders and in-house designers. In this business model, the minimal "design" fees are simply a way to get people to sign a construction contract. In other words, what's being done may by cooking a previously existing floor plan until "complete", with little or no corresponding thought or work on site planning, climate and green design, and almost no thought to exterior massing and design. When the floor plan is sufficiently baked, the rest of the project is like icing a new cake. The exterior decoration is simply applied and handed to the client. This sort of incomplete thinking about design is why we see so many postings here on this forum of "fat" house plans, and corresponding ill-proportioned, roof-heavy exteriors, with a pretty "street face" and vanilla sides and backs. It's why so many designs are a miss-mash of stacked gable roofs and patch-work quilt wall materials--all decoration and no substance! All of the effort went into tweaking a plan and little or no corresponding work took place elsewhere. Architects work differently. They organize their work and fees by phases, working from very open-ended studies and explorations for a custom design, to a highly detailed set of drawings and specifications for bidding and construction. These phases of work are clearly defined and derived from a historical understanding of how building design proceeds in a step by step process, from initial ideas to final details, where insides, outsides, site, codes, energy, etc., are all considered together throughout the design process. The five typical phases for designing a project are: schematic design, design development, construction drawings and specifications, bidding and construction. One phase does not begin until the client has approved the work from the prior phase. These phases are why many architects may start a project using pencil, pen and tracing paper as they meet and discuss ideas, explore site opportunities, develop energy and green strategies, finally pulling everything together in a holistic schematic design. Thereafter, with the design direction identified, a computer may be used effectively to refine and add greater precision and detail, until the work is complete. It's not impossible to use computers for schematic design, but it is more difficult to sit in a meeting with clients, talk about needs and opportunities while punching information into a computer. It's a lot more effective to sit with clients and "doodle" with pencil and paper where everyone can see what their ideas may actually look like. The costs for this type of work is usually set by the architect as either a fixed fee (with conditions on what the fixed fee covers so that the work doesn't ramble on endlessly) or a percentage of the construction cost, or some combination, depending on circumstances. The important point for consumers to understand is that architect's fees are based on the quality and amount of original work by an architect, while SF costs may be based on minimal changes to an existing project, with possible hidden costs rolled into the construction budget. The issue is really not about how the work is performed--by hand or computer--it's really about what work is performed (or not performed) for a client, and what will be the end result: something custom and original or something reheated. Sorry about the long message, but it's important to point out that there's nothing wrong with either custom or reheated designs as long as the consumer understands what they are getting for what they are paying.