For instance we rarely do 3D,
But you will.
They've been struggling with this problem for 20 years, and I've got about 10 years 'til retirement. I figure they should just have it worked out by then.
ummm... we worked it out nearly a decade ago and have been doing 3D exclusivly for over six years.
Remember that we are only the structural engineers. When we use 3D it is for graphic problem solving of the scratchpaper nature, and never part of the construction docs: some little stick diagrams and that's about it. We don't "detail the snot" out of everything. That's the job of whomever's doing shop drawings.
Even when we're just doing the engineering and not the fabrication, 3D provides a time savings that can not compare with 2D. If we are to do the fabrication and hence the detailing we don't use AutoCAD. Tekla is just way too fast at producing fabrication details to stuggle through trying it in AutoCAD.
It doesn't pay us to generate all the data in a 3D model as we simply don't need (nor want) to display every specific situation.
It has very little at all to do with "display". Employing a cheap little interference checking tool like "Navisworks Clash Detective" can save as much as two percent of the "Total Installed Cost" of a project. Full BOM's can be quickly and easily extracted from 3D models (if properly done). Then there's the time saved on revisions and modifications. We simply can't afford to to 2D drawings any more.
Our drawings are highly schematic in nature. We need to group all similar situations under one umbrella that covers them all. The more situations we can cover with generalized details, the less we need to draw to cover our contract requirements and the more coordinated the overall product.
You can still cover details in a generalized format
One thing our clients never do is to draw things in their actual size. They send us their 3D drawing all the time, and they are totally worthless because (among other things) they've drawn nominal sizes.
We toss them out and do dimensionally accurate drawings. In 2D.
Wait a minute?? Are they "dimensionally accurate drawings" or are they "highly schematic in nature"?? If you mean by "schematic" that they are one-lines, but are accurate drawings, then you would lose nothing at all going to 3D except a lot of time on duplicate efforts.
You work in 3D all the time anyway, its just in your head, not saved in a file.
