I absolutely love Turbocad. For me its way easier than AutoCAD & Sketchup for modelling buildings for architectural work. I actually don't use any of the architectural features of Turbocad because they don't really offer me enough flexibility. The basic working environment is great for control and accuracy. I also really like the program's setup for presenting in paper space. I find Sketchup terrible for modelling, I always find myself in a muddle when I try.
But in Turbocad, I simply cannot get my renders to look the way I want. I'm sure that it may be possible, but its way too complicated. The process needs to be dumbed down to work for me. So my work flow consists of doing all the modelling and paper space work in Turbocad, but then export the model to Sketchup. I can then work with the environment in a more creative way. I can import the google terrain, and insert various landscape features, like trees etc that are available via the sketchup warehouse etc.
Then I export into a render program called Raylectron which produces really great renders and excellent animations. This works well even though I don't have a very fast PC. I then import the rendered images back into Turbocad and insert them into the paper space presentations.
So my feedback is that Turbocad wins, but for me its not yet a standalone product.
The models that I have attached are simple fairly quick models. A lot more could be done to make them completely real looking.