At issue here is the use of a "Mechanical" Package to do a "System".
Solidworks, as Agman says, is not set up to do systems. There are 3D parametric Programs that are. They cost a large amount of money.
Ford would not design a car with solidwords. Boeing would not design an airplane with solidworks. It is good for small assemblies and pars (as agman suggested).
However, I think it is a mistake to write off ALL 3D programs for civil/structural type work.
The reason that these programs exist as mechanical packages is because manufacturers have invested LARGE sums of money, and are willing to pay $15,000 per seat (sometimes more) for the software. The method of doing business, in the construction industry is different. This practice would send most firms out of business (just based on the shear investment of developing the software). But now it is developed. And I can be added onto for This NEW type of work. But it is going to take people in these industries USING the software, and giving feedback to the software companies to make it work for building industry.
Guys, Solidworks is low investment. You can get a seat of it for I think about $4000. But just remember... you get what you pay for!
Wes C.
------------------------------
There are no engineers in the hottest parts of hell, because the existence of a 'hottest part' implies a temperature difference, and any marginally competent engineer would immediately use this to run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool. This is obviously impossible.