Hey everyone,
So I was having this debate with a colleague last week that got pretty heated, and I'm curious where the community stands on this. The question that started it all: "Is there ever a good reason to still use 2D CAD in 2025?"
My colleague (who's about 10 years younger than me) was adamant that everything should be 3D modeling now - "Why would you ever limit yourself to 2D when you can model in 3D?" Meanwhile, I found myself defending 2D workflows for certain situations, which honestly surprised me because I consider myself pretty progressive when it comes to adopting new technology.
My CAD Journey: From Board to 2D to 3D
Just for context, I've been doing CAD work for about 15 years now. Started on AutoCAD 2010 doing 2D mechanical drafting, moved into 3D with SolidWorks around 2015, and now I work primarily in 3D across multiple platforms depending on the project - SolidWorks for mechanical, Fusion 360 for some design work, and still AutoCAD for certain applications. So I've lived through this transition and have strong feelings about both approaches.
The thing is, after all these years of 3D modeling becoming more powerful, faster, and more accessible, I still find myself reaching for 2D tools more often than I expected. And I don't think it's just because I'm old and set in my ways (though my colleague might disagree).
When 2D Still Rules: My Real-World Examples
Let me break down some specific scenarios where I genuinely believe 2D is not just acceptable, but actually superior:
Schematic and Conceptual Work: When I'm working on system layouts, electrical schematics, or process flow diagrams, 2D is incredibly efficient. Last month I had to design a pneumatic system layout for a manufacturing line. In AutoCAD, I could quickly sketch the entire system, show all the connections, add annotations, and produce a clear schematic in about 2 hours. If I'd tried to model this in 3D first, I would have spent half the time just figuring out realistic tube routing and component placement before even getting to the actual system logic. Sometimes you need to think in symbols and connections, not physical geometry.
Site Plans and Civil Work: For site layouts, parking lot design, and landscape plans, 2D is still my go-to. Yes, I know Civil 3D and similar tools exist, but for a simple site plan with utilities, drainage, and landscaping, traditional 2D CAD is incredibly fast and produces exactly what you need. I can knock out a comprehensive site plan in 2D faster than I can even set up the coordinate systems and surfaces required for a proper 3D civil model.
Quick Modifications and Markups: This is a big one. When a client sends back a drawing with redlines, or when I need to quickly modify an existing 2D drawing, staying in 2D is often the path of least resistance. If I have a 2D floor plan that needs a wall moved, I can make that change in 2 minutes. Converting to 3D, making the change, and regenerating the 2D output might take 20 minutes and introduce potential errors or formatting issues.
Documentation and Detailing: Here's where I might get some pushback, but I still think 2D excels for certain types of technical documentation. When I'm creating assembly instructions, exploded views for manuals, or detailed section views with extensive annotations, I often find it faster to work directly in 2D. Yes, you can generate these views from 3D models, but the control over line weights, annotation placement, and graphic clarity is often better when you're working directly in 2D.
Legacy Project Maintenance: This is a practical reality that can't be ignored. I work with clients who have thousands of 2D drawings created over decades. When they need modifications or additions to these existing drawings, it's often more efficient to work within the established 2D framework rather than trying to reverse-engineer everything into 3D models. The time investment to convert everything rarely pays off for simple modifications.
The Efficiency Question: Speed vs. Comprehensiveness
This is really at the heart of the 2D vs 3D debate for me. 3D modeling gives you more comprehensive information, better visualization, clash detection, and the ability to generate multiple views automatically. But it also requires more upfront investment in time and setup.
I've timed myself on similar projects, and here's what I've found:
For a simple mechanical bracket with 3-4 parts, I can create a complete 2D drawing set (plan, elevation, section, details) in about 1 hour. The same bracket modeled in 3D, with proper constraints, materials, and drawing generation, takes about 2.5-3 hours. Now, if I need to make design changes or generate additional views, the 3D model pays off quickly. But for one-off, simple projects, the 2D approach is demonstrably faster.
For complex assemblies with lots of parts and potential interference issues, 3D wins hands down. The time investment upfront pays huge dividends when you need to make changes or catch problems early.
The question becomes: how do you predict which projects will benefit from the 3D investment and which ones won't?
Software Considerations: Not All CAD is Created Equal
I think part of the 2D vs 3D debate depends heavily on what software you're using and what you're designing.
AutoCAD: Still incredibly fast and efficient for 2D work. The command line interface, snap settings, and 2D editing tools are mature and optimized. When I'm working in AutoCAD, 2D feels natural and quick.
SolidWorks/Inventor/Fusion: These are obviously built for 3D, and their 2D capabilities are more of an afterthought. If you're already working in one of these platforms, it usually makes sense to stay in 3D.
Draftsight/ZWCAD/BricsCAD: These AutoCAD alternatives are interesting because they're trying to modernize the 2D experience while keeping the efficiency that makes 2D attractive.
SketchUp: Occupies this weird middle ground where it's technically 3D but feels almost as fast as 2D for simple work.
I think the software ecosystem has created some artificial divisions. If you're working in a primarily 3D software package, of course everything looks like it should be 3D. But if you have access to good 2D tools, the equation changes.
Industry and Discipline Differences
I've noticed that the 2D vs 3D preference varies significantly by industry and discipline:
Architecture: Has largely moved to 3D (BIM), but still uses 2D for schematics, site plans, and certain types of documentation.
Mechanical Engineering: Pretty much all 3D now, especially for product design. But still lots of 2D for simple brackets, fixtures, and manufacturing drawings.
Civil Engineering: Mixed bag. Site plans, road design, and utility layouts are often still 2D. Structural work is increasingly 3D.
Electrical/Controls: Heavily 2D for schematics and panel layouts. Some 3D for physical routing and installation planning.
Manufacturing/Fabrication: Depends on complexity. Simple sheet metal and machined parts might still be 2D. Complex assemblies are definitely 3D.
I wonder if some of the 2D vs 3D preference is actually discipline-specific rather than a universal progression toward 3D.
The Learning Curve Reality
Here's something that doesn't get talked about enough: 2D CAD has a much gentler learning curve than 3D modeling. When I'm training new team members, I can get someone productive in 2D AutoCAD in a few weeks. Getting them competent in 3D modeling takes months.
This matters for companies that need to quickly train drafters, or for professionals who only do CAD work occasionally. If you're an engineer who spends 80% of your time on analysis and only 20% on CAD, maintaining proficiency in complex 3D software can be challenging.
I've seen plenty of engineers who could knock out a quick 2D sketch to communicate an idea, but who would struggle to efficiently create the same thing in 3D because they don't use the software frequently enough to stay sharp.
File Size and Performance Considerations
This might be less relevant now than it was 10 years ago, but 2D files are still significantly smaller and faster to work with than 3D models. A complex 2D drawing might be 5-10 MB. The equivalent 3D model could easily be 50-100 MB or more.
For companies with slower networks, older hardware, or cloud-based workflows, this can make a real difference in day-to-day productivity. I've worked on projects where opening and saving 3D assemblies took several minutes, while the equivalent 2D drawings were instant.
Also, 2D files tend to be more stable over time. I can open AutoCAD drawings from 20 years ago without major compatibility issues. 3D models, especially complex assemblies, are more prone to corruption, missing references, and version compatibility problems.
Client and Contractor Expectations
Here's a practical consideration that often gets overlooked: what do your clients and contractors actually need?
I work with contractors who are perfectly happy with 2D drawings and would actually prefer them over 3D models that they can't easily view or modify. I also work with clients who specifically request certain deliverables in 2D format because that's what their internal processes are set up to handle.
Sometimes the most sophisticated solution isn't the most useful solution. If your client needs a simple plan view for permitting, giving them a 3D model might actually create more work for everyone involved.
When 3D is Obviously Better
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that 2D is always better. There are plenty of scenarios where 3D is clearly superior:
Complex Assemblies: Anything with multiple parts that need to fit together. The clash detection and interference checking alone makes 3D worth it.
Visualization and Presentation: Clients understand 3D models much better than 2D drawings. For design reviews and presentations, 3D wins hands down.
Manufacturing and CNC: If you're going directly from CAD to CNC or 3D printing, you obviously need 3D geometry.
Iterative Design: If you know the design will go through multiple revisions, the parametric capabilities of 3D modeling pay off quickly.
Collaboration: When multiple people are working on the same design, 3D models provide better coordination and communication.
Analysis Integration: FEA, CFD, and other analysis tools work much better with 3D geometry.
The Hybrid Approach: Best of Both Worlds?
Lately, I've been gravitating toward a hybrid approach that uses the right tool for each stage of the project:
1. Start with 2D sketches for concept development and quick iterations
2. Move to 3D for detailed design and coordination
3. Generate 2D drawings from the 3D model for documentation
4. Make minor modifications directly in 2D if it's faster
This approach acknowledges that both 2D and 3D have strengths, and the goal should be efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one approach or the other.
I've also been experimenting with tools that blur the line between 2D and 3D. SketchUp, for example, lets you work in a very 2D-like way but produces 3D geometry. Some of the newer CAD platforms are trying to combine the speed of 2D with the benefits of 3D.
Looking Forward: Will 2D Become Obsolete?
This is the big question, isn't it? Are we just delaying the inevitable transition to all-3D workflows?
I think 2D will persist in certain niches for quite a while. Schematic work, simple documentation, and quick conceptual sketches seem like natural fits for 2D approaches. But I do think the boundary will continue to shift toward 3D as the tools get faster and easier to use.
The real game-changer might be AI-assisted design tools that can quickly generate 3D models from 2D sketches or verbal descriptions. If the overhead of creating 3D models becomes minimal, then the advantages of 2D largely disappear.
I'm also watching the development of tablet-based CAD tools. Drawing on a tablet feels much more like traditional 2D drafting, but these tools are increasingly producing 3D output. This might be the bridge that finally makes 3D as fast and intuitive as 2D.
Questions for the Community
Alright, I've probably revealed more about my workflow biases than I intended, but I'm genuinely curious about everyone else's experiences:
1. Do you still use 2D CAD for any applications? What are they, and why haven't you switched to 3D?
2. For those who've gone all-3D, what was the tipping point? Was it a specific project, software improvement, or company mandate?
3. How do you handle the efficiency vs. capability trade-off? Do you ever choose a less capable tool because it's faster for certain tasks?
4. What's your experience with client/contractor preferences? Do they care whether you use 2D or 3D, or just about the final deliverables?
5. Industry-specific question: What discipline are you in, and how has your 2D vs 3D usage evolved over time?
6. Software-specific: Does your choice of 2D vs 3D depend heavily on what software you're using? Are you more likely to stay in 2D if you're working in AutoCAD vs. SolidWorks?
7. Training and team considerations: How do you handle the learning curve differences when bringing new people onto projects?
8. Performance and file management: Do file sizes, performance, or compatibility issues factor into your 2D vs 3D decisions?
I suspect this topic might be more controversial than I initially thought. The younger generation of CAD users who started with 3D tools might have very different perspectives than those of us who lived through the transition. And different industries probably have very different answers to these questions.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and probably having some of my assumptions challenged. That's always the best part of these discussions - finding out that your "obvious" workflow choices aren't so obvious to everyone else.
What's your take? Is 2D a legacy approach that we should be moving away from, or does it still have legitimate advantages for certain applications? Or maybe, like me, you think the answer is "it depends"?
Cheers,
Claudiu