good drafting program for structural engineering firm

huangyhg

good drafting program for structural engineering firm?
greetings,
i am a young engineer at a well established structural engineering firm.  our firm uses autocad 14 with the softdesk 8 add-on.  softdesk 8 has great features for drawing framing and foundation plans and for drawing details.  softdesk 8 fits our needs perfectly.  
however, all of our architectural clients are using much newer versions of autocad.  to coordinate projects, we will email drawings back and forth with the architect.  this works fine for them, but we have problems opening their drawings due to autocad version compatibility.  for a while, we would ask our clients to save the drawings in release 14 but newer versions of autocad cannot save that far back.  we need to upgrade just to stay close to our clients and ensure future software and hardware compatibility.
does anyone have any recommendations?  what are you currently using?  what do you like/dislike about it?  
thank you.
we use autocad 2004 lt and microstation v8 where i am.  that way what ever the client has we can work with it.  those are the two big ones out there that i know of.  most of the government jobs we see or here about all require microstation.  it's good to have that and be able to work with it to broaden your abilities.  lt is 2d only and has a few less features than the full blown autocad and is cheaper.  both autocad and microstation have pros and cons, one does something the other doesn't and so forth.  
you'll most likely have to upgrade to autocad 2004, as that is i believe the version that can't save back down from (autocad lt 2004 can with some error messages forever attached to the drawings, but the full version can't).  so basically, autocad is forcing everybody to upgrade as soon as all the architects upgrade.
besides obvious cost of upgrading, if you run a customized system with menus and autolisp routines, the thought of re-setting up your system for the new autocad version is why i think a lot of companies are hesitant to make that move to autocad 2004 (i know that is why we are holding off, although we have very extensive lisp routines).  i no longer draft my own work, but used to be proficient.  
we also use microstation v8.
use auto cad. they are the bench march for most commercial engineering and architectural. micro station is nice. however, the markets demand more auto cad not microstation. few government agencies use microstaiton such as nasa, state dots.
this is humble opinion and i own an engineering firm and plenty of work.
now i am not judging which one is better.  i think auto cad is pricy and their updates gimmicks are not very desirable to me. i would rather pay one flat annual fee for updates and get them as they come out; rather than play all kinds of what ifs and if you get this before this date and you have version xy you pay this much; otherwise, it is this much and if you do not upgrade version 2002 by the end of 2004 you have to pay the full price. bs (and this does not stand for a degree!!). i bough the software, sell me upgrades reasonably, please.
lutfi
we use turbocad by imsi here.  it works fine for 2d structural drafting.  in theory turbocad is compatible with autocad but it is not completely, in practice. however, we are able to use autocad files as reference backrounds for our turbocad.  the arch backrounds frequently have errors so we usually end up drafting our backrounds anyway, but using the the arch drawings as temporary refernce is a help.
we also have autocad light (in several versions!) so we can read our clients (mostly architects) drawings if necessary.  however i prefer to draft in turbocad, some features make it easier to use, in my opinion.  i have common operations set up as single keystrokes, and all our typical detail library is in tcad now.
the decision to use turbocad was made four years ago, was not an easy one. when i worked for others they all used autocad for their drafting.  i don't know any structural draftsman who are familiar with turbocad, however, and thats a real negative at this time.  it can be configured to mimic autocad but there would still be a learning curve.
we are small so it does not matter right now, but it might in the future if we were to expand.  choose carefully, its a big commitment.
i use vectorworks, as capable as autocad but way, way cheaper and easier to use (or should i say that autocad is way, way overpriced!).  i used to use turbocad but gave that up for vw.
most structural offices will use autocad.
thanks for the feedback everyone.  however, i think i need to be more specific.
we are not worried about costs as much as we are features.  the softdesk 8 addon to autocad we currently use has so many great features.  when generating foundation plans, all we need to do is select "12" concrete wall" and follow the centerline of the foundation wall and the program takes care of the rest.  another example would be drawing pad footings at an exterior column where you already have a foundation wall and strip footing.  all we do is select say "6'0" sq. footing" from the drop-down menu and pick the center of the footing.  the program will draw the footing and trim out the necessary lines  of the pad footing and strip footing.  for framing plans, it is the same thing...select the type of member (beam, joist, column, etc.) from a drop-down menu and start laying out your plan.  the program trims interstecting   
we have the same problem here, we have 10 draftsmen, all use r14, and haveing to save as, save as and what not.  ideally 2005 would be the best, it is not too much different, but its improvements are helpful
you could just buy a single version of autocad 2002 and use that to convert drawings as needed.(depending on frequency) i will warn you though that once you use autocad 2002(or higher) you'll stop wanting to use r14. a lot of emailing is going the way of tifs and pdfs now, so you might invest some time finding a means to generate those formats from autocad.
we have an independent who uses turbocad and while he swears by it like i do by autocad, we have been unable to set it up to plot correctly. to me, that makes it a no buy.
i use to use visual cadd for 2d. it was twice as fast as autocadd. all i had to do was think about a line and it would draw it. autocadd for all its features is not as fast. i switched because the rest of the world uses autocad. we now do a lot by e-mail and everything is autocadd. except dot's. they have such a micro-station legacy that i doubt they will ever switch.
one caution about autocadd 2004 - you need xp (perhaps window 2000) to run it. won't run on windows 98