1.) Joe has been doing this for quite some time and is more than capable of taking care of himself.
Point taken.
2.) I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.
OK, "misanthropic" has been addressed, but you didn't "question it". You compared it to some truly stupid maneuver.
3.) Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it. Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.
Right now, that duplication of effort is less effort than constructing a 3D model. Perhaps if our clients supplied us with a reasonably good 3D model of their work to start from, this wouldn't be the issue that it is. So far, this has never happened.
4.) Even in pencil drafting, the data required for the third dimension is required to construct. There is no such thing as a 2D construction. Crippling the 3D data in a file requires that information be transmitted in some other format, no longer connected to the original data. Sorry, but that INCREASES liability.
"Crippling 3D data in a file" was not my issue. Getting rid of incorrect and dead-weight 3D data is our problem. I don't doubt that a good 3D model is far more useful than any 2D model. Again, we've never received one. What we do receive, on a regular basis, is dangerous stuff to the unwary. I'm not about to pass that on from my office.
5.) Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information. Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.
The 2D coordinates are usually very good. An 8' high toilet, however is more correct once flattened, and I won't even mention the idiocy of 8' tall text in the model. (oops!) Rake walls that are flat on top in the 3D view are worse than wrong. They are misleading. So much of the "data" we receive is like this. A good dose of flatten and overkill removes the incorrect part of the data, leaving data people can actually use without being mislead.
6.) Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion. (See note #4 above)
I've been drawing elevations for 30 years, and people have been building from them. Would I rather "view" them than "draw" them? Of course. I am no Luddite (except, I admit, when it comes to cell phones.) Again, the data we're getting is untenable for such purpose.
7.) If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.
A difference, yet not much of a distinction. You belittle the very necessity of his work and imply that it is in fact a bad idea; and I say you are wrong. Not all of us have the luxury of a world where such tools are superfluous. For some of us they are a blessing.
