Having been brought up on 3D design software and still worked extensively on 2D, I find it difficult to think that there could be people out there who dont yet realise its benefits over 2D. Cost of software and the associated costs of the hardware required to run it effectively and the training required to get productive on 3D are the only things that I see preventing whatever minor 2D community from shifting. I would like to add one more important point to your top 5, which is that 3D software can also generate 2D drawings which have all the benefits of the output from a 2D software. Like taking a print and carrying to the shopfloor. Not to mention other aspects like generation of manufacturing information, BOM creation etc. I really find it surprising that such a survey was done this year at all. Should've been a decade back.

Thank you for your response, and the addition to the top 5. It sounds like you have some good experience in working with 3D. I agree with the reasons you state for companies not moving to 3D, and I believe the study backs those up. But I also believe the report is very relavent, because there are still a lot of companies that have been left behind in the 2D world. And a number that have moved to 3D, but not taken advantage of a lot that 3D can offer. I'll invite Chad or Michelle from Aberdeen to provide their thoughts. Thanks for your comment.

Thanks Jim. You have a point there when you say that many who have moved to 3D still dont leverage it effectively. But considering that the report says that there is still a substantial 2D community its easy to understand the reason. The culture resistance to change and the lack of proper training/awareness on the true capabilities of 3D software could be the reason that they are underutilized. Moreover the large scale adoption is probably just still happening organisations are getting used to the basic "modules" of 3D tools before they invest in advanced capabilities/licences which can be added on. Viewing the models in 3D is a great capability but thats just a start and organisations will realise this sooner than later.

Thank you for your interest in the study. You pose some interesting questions around 2D users. Since we were looking at best practices for leveraging 3D CAD, we did not seek to capture how many are still using 2D so, the survey was more likely to capture a 3D audience. However, even with the 3D focus, 24% had just started using 3D within the last year or were not even considering it. What was very interesting was the profile of the 2D users. Most of them have been proficiently using it for years and do not see a reason to make a change. 73% of the 2D users surveyed had been using it for more than 15 years and 64% had been using it for more than 20. Imagine using the same tool for over 20 years, without any issue, and then being asked to completely change the way you design products with a new 3D tool. Designing in 3D does require a change in thought process and not everyone views this as a positive change. I began my career designing in 2D, but when I made the switch to 3D, shared thoughts similar to yours and thought everyone would instantly see the benefits of 3D. However, after providing technical support for a 3D CAD tool, I can tell you there are many who find the associated frustration of making the change overweighs the benefits. In the study, when 2D survey respondents were asked if they thought their company would benefit from 3D, their responses were also enlightening. The following is a snapshot of a few of their comments: “Don’t like 3D because it takes too long to reuse the drawings and takes too much time to create.” “3D is only good as a sales tool.” “The company may be willing to use 3D, but I am not sold on it for our needs.” “2D is sufficient” “No, most of the work we do is based around 2D design, 3D would complicate the work load, slow down design Time Our engineering department would have to be alot bigger to warrant the change.” “Being able to spin a wireframe [model] doesn't buy us much. Our experience has been that as "Wow!" features are added, it becomes more difficult to do mundane things like draw lines and place text.” “Retire the 'old guard' and bring in fresh ideas.” And my personal favorite: “No, we can't get the management to agree that it is needed. We could do it the old way; line the managers up before a wall and execute them for treason, but I digress.” So, you can see, while there are many who are using 3D, there are still many 2D users who do not view 3D as beneficial.

Thanks for your comments, Michelle. Yes I can imagine the effort needed to convert to 3D if you have been working with 2D for a substantial number of years. This also implies that the user is bound to have a very good idea about interpretation of 2D to real life form. Now, the ease with which this interpretation can be made also depends on the complexity of the products you are dealing with. Perhaps you could share some information on the industry segments that these die hard 2D users come from. Considering the basic 3D capability, (where you are making 3D models to generate 2D drawings) I suspect that there will be a threshold of complexity below which it wouldnt make sense to replace 2D with 3D(it would be a differnt case if you are starting afresh and are yet to decide between 2D and 3D, in which case, 3D should still win, subject to cost) But once you get into the area of advanced 3D capabilities, I think there should be no question in terms of whos the winner. And as far learning them for the first time, I think it takes the same effort to master 2D as it takes 3D. I have trained many "freshers" in 3D and the biggest challenge for them is in interpreting a 2D drawing to 3D, and not in mastering the software.

Yes, complexity is also a very interesting question. One of the top reasons 2D users cited for not using 3D was that they felt 3D was overkill for their product line. So, with that in mind, we took a look at the complexity of products designed in 2D and compared that to products designed in 3D. The report discusses this in detail and contains a series of graphs that compare the number of parts in a product, the length of the development cycle, and the number of product configurations offered per product line. We found that while some of the products designed in 2D are simpler, overall, they are very similar in terms of complexity. Also interesting, 2D users came from the same wide variety of industries that 3D users come from including industrial equipment, A&D, general manufacturing, computer equipment, and automotive. There are more 2D users in the Construction / architecture, as expected.

Michelle- you have covered many aspects of complexity in your study. From my experience, I would like to add a couple more. -Complexity of shape- for example, an aircraft wing surface. 3D can read co-ordinates off the model for generation of CNC machining data, whereas the same model represented in 2D requires a lot of interpretation into machining input. Structural analysis of complex shaped components are quicker and more accurate with FEA methods which again benefit from the availability of 3D shapes in most cases. True, there are not many industries which have components with very complex surfaces and shapes, but the very fact that these are the industries which have pioneered the development and use of 3D CAD and FEA show that they do add value there. Now that the technology has developed, these tools are more accessible to other industries too, and I believe its good thing helping companies leverage 'virtual' prototyping to cut development costs.