Everyone selects a product that they are comfortable with. Their package does what they need to do and they know how to use the features that they need for the completion of their work.
For an engineering firm, there is no better product than AutoCad C3D. None. BUT not everyone works for an engineering firm.
I provide a service to engineering and architectural firms so one of my main concerns is product compatibility. We also provide services to government agencies that require Intergraph. We end up with multiple platforms and formats. It would be nice to be like many here and do work just for in-house use, but that is not my situation.
Running multiple platforms and setting "drawing standards" to client specifications can get rather complex and costly.
Thus my bottom line becomes COST. I must find a software package that maintains compatibility, performs all of the tasks that my area of specialization requires and yet is cost effective. I compared features I needed and MSLRP. AutoCad Civil 3D =$6,495 per seat. I need 10 seats. Carlson Survey with embedded AutoCad = $2,995 per seat. I think the choice was quite obvious.
I still like AutoDesk products, but they are not economically feasible for my company.
Have I lost any functionality in my selection? Absolutely not. I am on the same platform in the field as in the office. That has many advantages. I can maintain multiple template and figure prefix setups with no problem at all providing multiple clients with drawings compliant with their specifications. (I never could figure out how to do that in AutoCad, though that may have changed since the 2010 release. Honestly, I would not be surprise if the AutoCad new Field To Finish stuff is the same as Carlson's now.)
These products may be very similar now, except in that one, critical area; COST. That remains the bottom line.
