Sinc, I'm really sorry that you have such a guilt complex, but I never claimed you said that, nor are you the only one that I correspond with on this subject. You are not privy to my email in-box, I have received such comments and that is all I need to say on that.
You speak of my disdain of C3D. That disdain does not exist. I loved my LDD and all of the other AutoDesk products that I have used since 1988. As a software engineer I am sure that you feel that using software is just as easy for anyone as it is for you. Same way I feel about rooky drafters. Neither concept is valid. Non-software engineers have difficulty with any new software. You haunt enough discussion groups to know better than that.
My only problem with AutoDesk products is purely ECONOMIC. I have tried to explain that to you several times, but evidently you do not see my point.
AutoDesk messed up when they put everything into one package. My company is a PURELY surveying firm. We do NO engineering graphics work or computations. Things like volumes, etc. are handled by our parent company which is a large engineering firm.
We do ALTA's, boundarys, rights-of-way, topos, etc. Now if you can give me the ammo to go to my boss to justify the extra $40,000 it would cost for us to switch back to AutoCad, because the surveying and topo part of that package is just that superior to what we are using now, I'd be glad to go back. (Don't forget that I will also need a better data collection package for the field guys. That's at least another $5,000.)BUT I cannot see paying that money for software that I will never use.
Plus we would need additional training to catch back up on AutoCad. That would be what, $5,000? So, for what we do, will that "more powerful" software justify my requesting that $50,000? Where does the $50,000 extra power lie? Seriously, if you can give me that data, i might could do something about it.
But then, NONE of this invalidates my initial points about training.