I’ve used D5 commercially since the very beginning, through both Pro and Teams. I know the software well, I like it, and when I started putting together a new archviz workflow for a new company, D5 was the platform I expected to keep using.
The problem was simply timing. The new setup is still pre-commercial, and properly testing new approaches takes time. I did not want to take on the full cost of another Pro subscription before the new company was generating revenue. I already pay for D5 through another company, so this was hardly an attempt to get access to software I had never supported.
I contacted D5 and asked whether there was any temporary option for a single user: extended evaluation, creator access, startup access, a reduced rate, or some other limited arrangement. The purpose was personal concept development, asset testing and workflow evaluation, with no active client delivery.
I also explained that the Pro asset library and Cesium were central to deciding which platform the workflow should be built around. The Community version therefore could not answer the question I was trying to evaluate.
More than five weeks later, the answer was the standard seven-day Pro trial, followed by the normal monthly price. The Community version was suggested as the alternative.
After I pointed out why this did not address the request, D5 acknowledged it directly:
“A standard 7-day Pro trial is not the same as a dedicated pre-commercial, creator, or startup arrangement.”
What surprised me was that the conversation ended there. There was no escalation, temporary licence, reduced period or attempt to find a practical middle ground.
D5 did not owe me free software, and I never suggested that it did. I was presenting what seemed like a fairly ordinary commercial case: a temporary, restricted licence could help retain an experienced user and make D5 the basis of a future paid production workflow.
D5 chose not to pursue that, which is entirely their decision. It also made my own decision much easier. Twinmotion gives me enough time to build and test the workflow properly, while D5 offered seven days and directed me back to the standard plans.
I think there is a genuine gap here. A clearly limited pre-commercial licence could have restrictions such as one named user, no client production, a fixed duration and automatic conversion to paid Pro once commercial work begins.
Is D5 considering anything along those lines for experienced users building new workflows or pre-revenue companies evaluating which platform to commit to?