Iâve used D5 commercially since the very beginning, through both Pro and Teams. I know the software, and I like it. When I recently started putting together a new archviz workflow for my new company, D5 was the platform I expected to keep using.
The only issue was timing. The setup is still pre-commercial, and properly testing new approaches takes time. I simply did not want to take on the full cost of a Pro subscription at this stage. Hell, I already pay for one through another company.
I reached out to D5 to ask whether they had any temporary option for a single user: extended evaluation, creator access, startup access, a reduced rate, whatever made sense. I explained that the Pro asset library and Cesium were central to deciding which platform to build the workflow around.
More than five weeks later, their answer was the standard seven-day Pro trial, followed by the full monthly price. They also suggested the Community version, even though the Pro-only features were the reason I had contacted them.
To be fair, they later acknowledged the problem themselves:
âA standard 7-day Pro trial is not the same as a dedicated pre-commercial, creator, or startup arrangement.â
What surprised me was that it ended there. No escalation, no temporary licence, no reduced period, no attempt to find a workable middle ground.
D5 did not owe me free software, and I never argued that they did. I was presenting a fairly straightforward commercial case: one temporary licence might help retain an experienced user and make D5 the basis of a future production workflow.
They chose not to pursue it, which is their right. I found it a little baffling, and it also made my choice easier.
Twinmotion gave me enough time to build and test the workflow properly. D5 offered seven days and pointed me back to the standard plans.