Thanks, that makes it much clearer!
My work is almost 100% CAD, although I've done a bit of work sculpting finished CAD surfaces to duplicate stone in some models.
I recently retired and purchased GeoMagic Design/ Alibre... I am very happy with it as it is very powerful, doesn't require a ridiculously expensive computer, is very reasonably priced, and it was a very comfortable transition from the systems I used in my professional career.
I spent about twenty years working with ProEngineer, most recently ProEngineer Wildfire 5. My employer liked the stability of this version, it was paid for, and they weren't enthused about replacing all those licenses with something more current. Pro Eng is now Creo.
Creo really should be listed in the parametric section- perhaps it needs an arrow leading to it from the parametric line as well as from Direct Modelling?
I spent five years with Catia... despite a rather brutal learning curve, I very much liked this program but was perfectly happy going back to a newer version of ProEngineer with a change of employment.
Obviously, both Pro Eng and Catia are extremely high end programs that few designers here on Shapeways will be willing to purchase. This is what I like about GeoMagic Design/ Alibre. I have the same functionality in solid modelling CAD and assembly modelling, but at a reasonable price. I don't have the extensive surfacing package found in Pro Eng, but few users at work needed that- basically, three or four guys who spend most of their time working on aircraft work.
When I retired in October, my employer was exploring a strategy to rationalize about 150 seats of multiple CAD systems, at all levels, from very basic to highly advanced. I was lucky to play a very minor role in this study, and learned about a few systems I'd never heard of previously. Obviously, floating licenses at a corporate level may be part of the solution, with training given at a level appropriate to the individual user. It would be interesting to hear the eventual solution.
Along the way I've used many other CAD systems, but ACAD would be the most important of those. My ACAD experience is too out of date to be of value here, as they were just starting to add 3D functionality when I stopped using it.
One thing that would be nice to see in the flow chart as it develops is some discussion of the weaknesses and strengths of each program, and of the relative popularity in industry. Is there any way to do this, but avoid clutter, possibly by hovering with the mouse or right clicking? Obviously, much of that input would need to come from experienced users in each system. I see you're already starting to fill in costs of software (machine costs could add significantly to the cost of some packages).
Wouldn't it be great if software manufacturers would create a special type of license, where a fee is charged for each hour of use- occasional users wouldn't pay much, but if they used it a lot for short durations they would pay more, while heavy users would be best to just buy the softwae...
A thought is that beginners might not really understand the initial categories very well, and an even more basic column might help them- a "What do I want to do" type of thing, leading sculptors toward organic design , mechanical types toward CAD- but giving guidance as to whether they want direct modelling or parametric, etc... realizing most parametric software can also be used in more basic direct modelling.
Sorry for the rambling reply, but my hope is there might be something useful in here.
I really like what you're doing. The world of 3D modelling, in all its forms, can be a very bewildering place. You're helping beginners to make an informed choice and avoid future regrets.
Steve Hunter