So, after working with Landmark on several real-world projects for approx 5-6 months and becoming relatively proficient I can confidently assert that the software is woefully unsuitable for a modern landscape architecture workflow!
I would strongly suggest, if any admins, managers, or developers are reading this that you seek out Licensed Landscape Architects and have them test the software. I run a technologically-savvy, progressive design studio with projects ranging from small, private gardens with highly complex and constrained sites to urban master plans encompassing several dozen city blocks. We follow a professional-standard workflow and best practices. We expect the software (whichever software) to accommodate this workflow, not the other way around. Professionals should not have to adapt their process to software!
Here is an abbreviated list of my gripes:
2D drafting:
-Innaccurate, clunky, snaps and quick keys are not intuitive!
-Drafting tools do not easily accommodate standard drafting practices, ie tangent radii, offsets from center line, etc.
-Drafting in sketchup is easier, more intuitive and more reliable
-need real-world, intuitive quick keys that make ergonomic sense for fast drafting.
-consider adding scale reference, rotate reference commands. The move tool is clunky and undependable!
-consider adding command line with prompts!
-drafting or modeling roas is virtually impossible with any degree of accuracy
-parking tools are a joke, the way the tool works, like the road tool is at odds with how a road or parking lot are actually laid out.
-Grading should just simply include vertices for user to mannually manipulate proposed contours--professionals dont need automated tools to grade a site! The site modifiers are just a HUGE HUGE Time Suck!
I could go on...
In general, I want the community here and public to know as well as the managers that VW has cost us an immense amount of unnecessary time and expense over the last few months. Virtually everything we've created in VW has needed to be exported to DWG or some other file format and often redrafted or remodeled completely in order to share with consultants and make accurate documentation!
The software development is clearly way, way out of touch with professional needs and needs to go back to the fundamentals or continue to lose market share.
The Silver lining--
Pretty much the only thing I see VW has going is the fact that it is the only software that actually recognizes the demand for a BIM solution in landscape Architecture. The site modeling tools and general concepts are headed in the right direction.
Other than that--Landmark will be basically taking up space on our hard drives for the time being.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Question
nca777
So, after working with Landmark on several real-world projects for approx 5-6 months and becoming relatively proficient I can confidently assert that the software is woefully unsuitable for a modern landscape architecture workflow!
I would strongly suggest, if any admins, managers, or developers are reading this that you seek out Licensed Landscape Architects and have them test the software. I run a technologically-savvy, progressive design studio with projects ranging from small, private gardens with highly complex and constrained sites to urban master plans encompassing several dozen city blocks. We follow a professional-standard workflow and best practices. We expect the software (whichever software) to accommodate this workflow, not the other way around. Professionals should not have to adapt their process to software!
Here is an abbreviated list of my gripes:
2D drafting:
-Innaccurate, clunky, snaps and quick keys are not intuitive!
-Drafting tools do not easily accommodate standard drafting practices, ie tangent radii, offsets from center line, etc.
-Drafting in sketchup is easier, more intuitive and more reliable
-need real-world, intuitive quick keys that make ergonomic sense for fast drafting.
-consider adding scale reference, rotate reference commands. The move tool is clunky and undependable!
-consider adding command line with prompts!
-drafting or modeling roas is virtually impossible with any degree of accuracy
-parking tools are a joke, the way the tool works, like the road tool is at odds with how a road or parking lot are actually laid out.
-Grading should just simply include vertices for user to mannually manipulate proposed contours--professionals dont need automated tools to grade a site! The site modifiers are just a HUGE HUGE Time Suck!
I could go on...
In general, I want the community here and public to know as well as the managers that VW has cost us an immense amount of unnecessary time and expense over the last few months. Virtually everything we've created in VW has needed to be exported to DWG or some other file format and often redrafted or remodeled completely in order to share with consultants and make accurate documentation!
The software development is clearly way, way out of touch with professional needs and needs to go back to the fundamentals or continue to lose market share.
The Silver lining--
Pretty much the only thing I see VW has going is the fact that it is the only software that actually recognizes the demand for a BIM solution in landscape Architecture. The site modeling tools and general concepts are headed in the right direction.
Other than that--Landmark will be basically taking up space on our hard drives for the time being.
Nick
Link to comment
Top Posters For This Question
20
7
6
5
Popular Days
Jul 12
27
Jul 7
8
Jul 11
5
Jul 13
4
Top Posters For This Question
nca777 20 posts
digitalcarbon 7 posts
ericjhberg 6 posts
Rossford 5 posts
Popular Days
Jul 12 2017
27 posts
Jul 7 2017
8 posts
Jul 11 2017
5 posts
Jul 13 2017
4 posts
Popular Posts
Pat Stanford
nca777. I hope the following does not sound harsh. It is intended to help think through your decisions. You need to decide what you want to do. You say you are tempted to jump
nca777
So, after working with Landmark on several real-world projects for approx 5-6 months and becoming relatively proficient I can confidently assert that the software is woefully unsuitable for a modern l
ericjhberg
We have used the Site Model tools and site modifiers/3d polys to a fairly decent extent for coordination. I will admit that here in CA we rely heavily on civil engineers for the final grading document
Posted Images
55 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.