Why hasn’t AutoCAD been replaced by 3D software?

It has strong 2D capabilities, and its 2D layout can be integrated with UG PRO/e to create 3D models using other modeling software

Well, perhaps it’s an inevitable trend for 3D to replace 2D, but I think it will still take a long time; currently, 2D design is still widely used. 1: Not everyone needs to use 3D to solve problems ； 2: 3D software cannot solve everyone’s problems; 2D is often more convenient and practical than 3D ； 3: CAD’s 3D capabilities are sufficient for general modeling tasks.

Does the replacement mentioned by the poster refer to replacement during the design phase? 1. It is an inevitable trend for three-dimensional to replace two-dimensional, but it’s not a 100% replacement; three-dimensional will be used more and more widely, as its advantages over two-dimensional are not just an order of magnitude. 2. Two-dimensional will not be replaced any time soon – at least I can’t imagine when that might happen. You can’t expect construction workers to carry notebooks with them to the site in order to examine the model installation. Especially in the field of civil engineering, 3D models may not be able to convey the designer’s intentions clearly

I think the person on the 4th floor has a misunderstanding about 3D software. Take the chemical industry as an example: in the case of pipelines, what is used for on-site installation is a single-line diagram generated by 3D software; this diagram is printed out once the detailed design is completed and turned into a blueprint, and it constitutes a finished document ； As for the 3D software itself, it’s impossible to use it on a computer at the site; a database is required for that. 3D software is also used by larger engineering companies and design firms; it is costly, and a large amount of manpower is required in the initial stage. It can be said that for construction drawings, the element for which 3D software is most commonly used is pipes. For civil engineering construction drawings, CAD is sufficient (and it’s not even the original version of CAD – it has been further developed); it can already convey the design very well. Why go the extra mile?

What was said upstairs makes a lot of sense – moving from 2D to 3D is the trend, but CAD also has its own advantages. It’s necessary to take into account the level of development of the engineering project, as not every project requires 3D drawings

Those on the 5th floor might not have read the original poster’s post; what I mean is that 3D will not be able to replace CAD in certain industries over the next few years. Furthermore, I’ve heard that abroad, construction workers are now supposed to be able to use 3D models for on-site construction; of course, this is just what I’ve heard.

This is because CAD corresponds exactly to the three-view drawings that are widely used in engineering. Although 3D models are intuitive, they are similar to photos – it’s rare to see photos being used on-site!

The relatively smaller 3D software programs are based on the AUTOCAD platform, while larger 3D software programs are not widely promoted or used. Most design firms still rely primarily on AUTOCAD

It is inevitable for three-dimensional representations to replace two-dimensional ones, but there are some fields where two-dimensional formats are necessary; for example, in the field of equipment design, it is impossible to create three-dimensional diagrams for such equipment, as the time frame for completion is limited, and two-dimensional representations have an advantage in terms of accuracy regarding dimensions. It is said that after Autodesk was acquired, no more updates were released for CAD

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional formats each have their advantages. The advantages of three-dimensional format lie mainly in visual modeling and spatial layout, providing an intuitively visual effect without specifying exact dimensions； The manufacturing industry primarily relies on three-view drawings; although they are not very intuitive, they are extremely convenient for traditional manufacturing processes. Moreover, AUTODESK has also introduced their latest concept of digital prototyping, whose 3D capabilities are extremely strong.

This question is a bit like asking whether television can replace the radio, or whether smartphones can replace computers. I’m not a professional draftsman, but it can be seen that CAD’s 3D capabilities are quite good, and they are constantly improving. Many people don’t have high expectations regarding its 3D functions! Where there is demand, there is a market. VISTA is already almost outdated; aren’t there still people who use WIN98?

Running 3D requires high costs, while 2D is much easier to implement. Modern computers can handle 2D graphics without issue, but technologies capable of handling 3D are not yet widely available. The other three are not yet widely used in production and processing diagrams. For most operators today, while they can recognize 2D diagrams, they may not be able to recognize 3D ones; more time is still needed

It’s an inevitable trend! It’s just a matter of time

For some, 2D is still more convenient than 3D :)

1 The operational costs of 3D systems are high, and ordinary design firms cannot afford them. 2. 3D modeling takes a long time; it’s certainly convenient and fast for large projects, but for smaller projects it feels like overkill (a waste of resources), as 2D CAD is faster for handling such projects. 3. Many people are skilled in 2D CAD, but fewer are proficient in 3D CAD. This is especially true for senior engineers who have extensive experience yet have limited knowledge of 3D techniques. Young people learn quickly and can get familiar with using software fast, but they lack design experience.

The advantage of 3D models is that they are intuitive and easy to understand; even those who are not familiar with drawing can discern features based on their appearance. In contrast, understanding 2D drawings requires technical skills, and those who are not knowledgeable in mechanical drafting will find it difficult to comprehend them. Moreover, simple three-view drawings are sufficient to clearly show an object’s dimensions and specifications. Each approach has its advantages, so it’s not a matter of one replacing the other

1. 3D drawing in CAD is simple and fast! 2. All 3D software developed later by AUTOdesk can be integrated with CAD.

It’s hard to agree with the claim that 2D generates drawings faster than 3D; can CAD produce ISO drawings quickly? Even if designers work themselves to exhaustion, it’s not guaranteed that the result will be correct; working with materials is even more challenging. Using 3D makes floor plans even simpler; any plane can be created easily, and the model can be updated just by making changes. **CAD is merely a platform for converting 3D data into 2D format; we don’t make changes in CAD when creating drawings – instead, we modify the models themselves.

I feel that 3D software provides excellent protection for the intellectual property of design firms. Because when I was at the design institute, I saw that others’ PDMS files had passwords. Moreover, 3D graphics are not as widespread as 2D ones; even if they are stolen, few people will use them. Technology moves forward, and it is inevitable that three dimensions will replace two.

Replacing two dimensions with three is an inevitable trend; there’s no need for constant debate on this issue. The problem lies in the design habits of the people in the country, as well as in the decision-makers at the leadership levels of the design institutes. . . . . . If anyone doesn’t believe it, go and try PDMS yourself; facts are worth more than ten thousand words of rhetoric