Merrilll - Do some digging at PTC.com about 'annotation features'. You essentially create the drawing within the part. I think that if you have a lot of control of or influence over the entire chain of people that need to access the information, you'll have better luck with 3D drawings or model based definition. In our case, we deal with a lot of different small companies with the drawings we produce. While almost all can take a 3D file, very few, if any, are ready to embrace 3D drawings. One of the reasons is that there is not at this point a standard file format for a 3D drawing. For a standard drawing, there is a long standing tradition of the paper copy. That's universal and has worked for years and will continue to work as long as there are people who can read a print. Electronically, PDFs of the 2D drawing are nearly as universal now. For 3D, however, there is no blanket standard file format that you can count on everyone being able to use. Yes, you can create a 3D PDF, but I'm not sure how Pro|E annotation elements translate into a 3D PDF. Same goes for eDrawings, you can create an eDrawing of your Pro|E model but do the Annotations carry through? Product View is another solution that will carry the annotation elements, but now your recipient needs to have Product View Express to view it. We are getting closer, but we are still not quite there in my view. The other problem I have with the annotation element model is that you essentially create the drawing within the part file. The same number of steps, in the same basic order, based on what PTC was teaching in the 3D drawings sessions in Tampa in '07. In the end what you end up with the same work into a file that's less portable and harder to read. Why do it then? Why not, as we do now, create the 2D drawing and send it as a PDF and the model as an IGES or STEP? I'm intrigued by the model based definition idea, but I'm not convinced that we are there yet.