> I see from the rest of your message that my wants are quite  
 > different - The main aim is to speed up the design cycle
  
  For the design aspect, by all means "parametric/associative" 
 geometry is the way to go. That same capability in a manufacturing 
 approach makes for family of parts processing also. And the programs 
 you mentioned can draw up a sophisticated shape in a heartbeat. 
 AutoCAD may well be in its infancy in this regard, and who is to say 
 it will ever get there. But I suppose they will. When AutoCAD first 
 came out and I saw the space shuttle drawn in isometric mode, my 
 thought was that they could *never* so misrepresent 3D graphics and 
 attain to any serious following. So I was wrong. But the first 
 version I bought into was R12. Now I'm thinking that a large part of 
 manufacturing is performed in small shops not using the latest 
 techniques, and not requiring solid modelers just to move a machine 
 spindle back and forth a few times. 
  
 > That's saying that you pick up where I leave off 
  
   Exactly why I'm concerned with the output.
  
 > Forgive me - that sounds like a real slog, I admire what it says  
 > tho' all the bells and whistles with absolute minimal outlay -  
 > but it's not a direction industry can really follow ;-)
  
  I think I said more than just looking for minimal outlay. I'm also 
 suggesting paying for only what you need and specifying products 
 that interact with other products instead of proprietary solutions. 
 Not everyone needs to be able to *design* a part just to manufacture 
 it.
   
  If you need a higher-end CAD system (on a cost justified basis) 
 well, you need it. Intergraph, SDRC, ProE, probably CATIA, and many 
 others - well, none stand out in my mind to be so different from the 
 others. You might want to let us know which you decide to use, and 
 why...
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------