Commercially, I think the idea that 3D and 2D are indispensable components of drafting and design is more fruitful, ie, every 2D drafter should also have AD. If it turns out that they get accustomed to using AD exclusiveley, you have sold say 50000 copies of AD. If they use both 2D and 3D, you have sold 50000 copies of AD. This philsophy is not practical with more expensive 3D which serves the same purpose.
I had to lay out piping for an awning extension. Lots of elbows, tees, and claws. Practically, I instinctiveley did it in 2D. With everything layed out, changing one dimension was a nightmare. With 3D it would have been trivial. Yet the layout was easier in 2D. There is a natural association and progression between the two. I don't think it's necessary that the 2D and 3D be associative, though it is nice, but not at the price of complexity and lots of rules and buttons to push.
Personal opinion, which with $1 buys you a cup of coffee.
EDIT: In other words, you are better off selling 50000 2D users 3D, than converting 5000 of them exclusiveley to 3D.
EDIT AGAIN: On the other hand, implying that what someone else does is somehow backward and out-of-date, especially if you can back it up with beautiful pictures, does get their attention. It's the psychology of marketing, which is kind of interesting. In that regard, from a draftsmans perspective, my opinions are amateurish. Personally, I like both 2D and 3D.
EDIT AGAIN: The beauty of the forum is that you don't get fired for your opinions.
EDIT AGAIN. Unless you work for Alibre. Of course, so no offense meant.
