I am confused and concerned about the upcoming Autodesk product, "Autodesk
Architectural Studio"
http://www3.autodesk.com/adsk/section/0,,585585-123112,00.html
Autodesk says it is "conceptual phase" (software?) (Internet?), while
Architectural Desktop is "design software".
Isn't Desktop supposed to be sufficient? Will we need to spend thousands of
more dollars per station to do the conceptual design, or will this be a
small outlay? I went out on a limb to sell our department chief on giving
us Desktop 3 a few months ago (I'm thankful we got VIP).
Does this mean that Desktop, without Architectural Studio, will not progress
in its conceptual design capabilities, so we will have to buy Architectural
Studio?
If this is conceptual design software for architecture, I think it
reasonable that it be included in Desktop itself, or be only a small
additional expense.
We want to go the Autodesk route, but are becoming fatigued at the
increasing number of products Autodesk wants to neccesitate that we
purchase, as well as the dollars involved. Having said that, I do like the
idea of a pen-based sketch methodology - but not if a lot of dollars are
required.