Will 2D continue to be the defacto design communication method while 3D is adopted for design and modeling?

We are starting the serious transition away from 2D right now. It took a while.  A long while. There were a few obstacles that now have solutions: 1.  Translation of the ANSI / ASME dimension and tolerance standards to the 3D environment.  This was not a straightforward exercise.  SDRC, in tandem with FORD began doing this with the I-DEAS CAD / CAE software in the 90's.  That effort was actually quite good, but there were no real standards in place at the time.  They basically employed the concept of "model views" so that annotations could be presented in a reasonable to understand way.  That vision proved to be the right direction.  Output was either a quick transition to a 2D drawing, which was fairly easy given the model view paradigm, or VRML 3D output.  There was no other realistic vehicle for this at the time, which limited adoption. Near the same time, Boeing and Dassault began doing the same with CATIA.  It is likely that Airbus did too, but I don't have direct knowledge of that.  One significant difference between the SDRC approach and the Dassault one, was openness.  CATIA data is robust, and the manufacturing information ends up mixed into the model history and as PMI (Product Manufacturing Information) or MBD (Model Based Definition) similar to the SDRC 3D Annotation functionality. Supply chains that used mostly homogeneous CAD environments were successful in their effort to cut down on and often eliminate 2D drawings entirely, but cost was and to a degree still is a significant issue. Today the ASME standards are well on their way.  Vendors have started to settle on representation capabilities and the standards are moving forward nicely.  PMI / MBD capability is in most CAD systems now and output is possible as is translation in a majority of cases. 2.  Common, open, robust, effective 3D visualization technology. Some great tech from the 90's got put out there by Siemens in the form of JT.  JT can store full machinable B-rep solids, surfaces, 3D annotations (PMI), as well as light weight visualization data.  This, combined with the robust product data representation possible with STEP means it's possible to represent large, complex products in a CAD neutral way. Additionally, Adobe has extended PDF to include 3D viewables, adding the one common piece most needed.  A consistent, inexpensive viewable format. Today, we have large products that have very few 2D drawings.  These products are entirely represented by digital 3D data and it's done cross-platform too, meaning contributors can use a variety of CAD systems to participate in the manufacture and design of the product.  Auto, military and aerospace are the current leaders and they are leaning heavy on Siemens and Dassault products to do this, with their supply chains using other products as they see fit. There are some translation issues and closed data remains a painful problem, but some vendors understand the need and are helping progress along, other vendors who will remain nameless here don't quite get it yet.  I'm hoping market forces and the simple economics of it win the day over the next 10 years. 3.  People. The 2D drawing is very robust and it's easy to transport, and communicate, but not always so easy to read.  It has sharp limitations where product definitions include free form surfaces, and that really more than anything has driven the need for 3D.  It simply takes too much 2D information to describe many product models. 4.  Process We are still struggling with the idea of the "drawing as contract" and this will continue for some time yet as the 3D technology continues to mature and become more pervasive. Early on, the 2D drawing was the master contract and the CAD models were there to help things along.  Then we entered a phase where it got messy.  "Use the 2D, but if the 3D is different, use it instead..." and that idea of the contract got a bit blurry. Translation errors continue to be a concern as well.  Often in 3D supply chain processes, translation verification software is required to certify that a translated model conforms to the expectations and geometric representation contained in the authority, source 3D model.  Typically, models from CATIA or NX will get translated into STEP, or some other format for use within the supply chain, who may use Solidworks, Solid Edge or some other mid-range modeling software suitable for their place in the process. One source of trouble is different geometry kernels and translation tolerance errors can cause models to be somewhat different.  Verification is the solution for now. 5.  Cost Moving everybody to 3D is requiring better computers, improved model manipulation  interrogation and communication skills all the way out to the shop floor.  Shop environments favor 2D, because it can be printed, and paper is robust, can handle grease, be easily marked up, travel with parts, etc... Moving away from that is requiring process, technology and people skill changes that are just expensive enough to be done only when forced or seriously advantageous. A similar dynamic could be seen when we moved from simple wire-frame to solid model representations.  Major costs were incurred, but the economic gains were more than worth it.  The 2D to 3D model representations hold similar returns, but they aren't as focused, meaning transition time is longer than we saw with solids. I strongly recommend adding 3D annotation skill and capability to your work library.  It's finally coming, and it's finally very useful.  About time.  I remember talking about this happening in the 80s!

I believe we are already starting the transition away from 2-D, even in documentation. Today most mechanical, industrial and architectural design is conceived and originally solid modeled in 3-D. Even the vast majority of Civil and process engineering design is done in 3-D. Today most 3-D solid model designs are still converted to 2-D drawings for documentation purposes only. 2-D documentation has held sway for so long because it is portable (can be printed on paper) and is accessible to laypeople such as purchasing, production assembly folks and others without 3-D CAD systems or experience. Thus 2-D design was a required step in engineering and design. Even if for decades most mechanical and industrial design has been done originally in 3-D solid models. The 3-D model had to be "drafted" to 2-D documents. With the expanding popularity of 3-D PDF format, this is changing. Adobe's free and ubiquitous Adobe Reader has been able to allow anyone to view, manipulate and use detailed and rich 3-D data, without CAD experience or costly software and high end hardware. Proprietary "Free" 3-D viewers for most CAD systems have been around for a long time. They did not replace the 2-D drawing/document however, perhaps due to requiring that a different viewer for each CAD system be downloaded and installed, then the GUI for each was different and the user had to learn each one. Virtually every computer user has, and uses Adobe Reader. Since version 7 (2004?) it will open and allow viewing of 3-D PDF files. Companies today have already started the transition. The last two companies I've worked for use 3-D PDF files exclusively to communicate "assembly" documentation between departments. While we still draft 2-D drawings for individual tooled components, most vendors won't do a formal quote without getting the Solid 3-D CAD files for tooling such as plastic injection molding, or metal die-casting.

The design of 3D dimensional objects has never been 2D. The portrayal has been in 2D, often as perspective sketches of the 3D design. Computers allow for much better communication of ideas through 'virtual prototyping' by using 3D imagery. As an architect I use plans, sections and elevations as convenient ways of communication with those who can 'read' them, but I design in 3D. Modelling the building in 3D in a computer allows for much better communication of the design to others. It also allows a much higher standard of construction information within the tiny budget and short time period allocated to the design of very expensive, usually 'one off' projects.

The more accessible 3D is to young people, the more likely the 3D learning curve will be demolished by upcoming generations of designers, reviewers and decision makers. New people will be exposed to 3D, they will feel comfortable in 3D, and they'll take advantage of 3D when there is advantage to be had. Portals for toddlers to get into 3D models include the iPad and 3D apps, which makes 3D very accessible at a young age. Typically, a special software like a CAD viewer or a CAD program is needed to view 3D models Or, a file would have to go through conversion steps (like exporting to PDF). Today Online CAD Viewers make design-files accessible to anyone with a web browser, without any hassle of extra software or additional conversion steps. At this point in time, http://www.3Dfile.io is the simplest of online apps to open just about any CAD format (example: http://3dfile.io/8lbDDo#file-2) by TeamPlatform. One big reason to document CAD in 2D drawings is for geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (specificying the size of a box, for example, and how exact of a box it needs to be when produced).  2D drawings were good because humans typically checked how exact the shapes they made out of wood and metal after they were produced.  Today's manufacturing process using 3D CNC machines to read 3D CAD files and cut metal to make the shapes.  Then, checking how exact the cut was (if the part was cut correctly or not) is more commonly performed by 3D CMM's and even 3D laser scanners to verify the shapes. Since the design, manufacturing, and quality checking is all performed in 3D, the specification of the geometric dimensions and tolerances are also better suited for 3D and the machines that are checking them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate-measuring_machine and search youtube CNC machine Paper documentation will forever be 2D. In the future we'll see 3D everywhere else.