In most of software (with similar value) that I know are service packs. Moreover some of critical upgrades are also available for earlier versions. Can you say that "mirror" feature will be also available for Creo 2.0 ?
Honestly, it's not just about mirror features. It's just a tip of the iceberg. In my opinion progress of creo is too slow. Example: Five years ago we have jumped to pro/e from 2D autocad and when we've tried detailing (2D) module in pro/e then our first feeling was that we are back in stone age. It's been five years and the changes in mentioned module are marginal.
I fully bear with you on this. As a part of product development team I'd also like to see things coming out faster, but as any company PTC also has its constraints and priorities.
On the other hand, the more customers software has - the more different wishes exist, and some new development that will leave costumes A/B/C happy will leave customers C/E/D ignorant. I know our PM team is listening to your voices, and tries to do as much as possible in given constraints. Clearly knowing it will never be enough.
As to your point about service packs to shorten the way to new functionality : this is interesting topic, and our PM knows and weights pros and cons of this approach. One of the more serious "cons" on the way to SP is what we call "backward compatibility" which means ability of Creo#ABC Datecode#N read data stored in Creo#ABC Datecode#(N+1). This largely limits our ability to add serious new functionality in later datecodes, but this does not mean that certain additions in later datecodes are totally impossible.
Hope this give some insight, and thanks for your patience and constructive approach.
Shortly after assembly cuts were introduced I was talking with a PTC rep and mentioned that it was unacceptable to embed the cuts as hidden family tables in the components and the cut information needed to be stored in the assembly; otherwise a released part rev would continue to get bumped and get larger for every place it was used. He scoffed and said it wasn't possible. I think the ability to do this was introduced less than a year after that conversation. Nowadays it seems to take forever to get software corrections, much less adding new functions.
In this case it seems a bit odd to worry about saving time making 'Mirror, but not quite' assembly features. It requires the mirrored item to already be mirror symmetric about some plane, but look what happens later in the design when a change happens that eliminates that condition - adding a chamfer or hole tapped from one side? Poof - back to a new part number anyway. It's not as if the mating constraint is actually mirrored, just the 3D origin, while keeping the orientation unchanged. I'd be very surprised if the assembly references were recreated to be mirrored; even more if the solution could be inverted and the original parts converted to be the ones mirrored or even eliminated.
Were I to make a change I'd look to having a UI lead that had salary authority over the other PMs. CAD software is an interactive software development tool for creating programs that, when executed, result in images and detail drawings and analytical output. As such the priority needs to be on the interactive part of the software, a segment long given a distant second place.
Reading an article on the UI improvements in SW 2016, I learned that SW has a "Vice President, User Experience Architecture". Clearly, they value UX in their product and it shows (though there are still issues).
Does PTC have a similar position? I doubt it, and if they do I'm betting it's not at a such high level. Preo has long been riddled with UX idiosyncrasies and Creo continues to as well.
I didn't read all the responses, so maybe someone already said this.
Since the part is identical, why not use the "repeat" command to continue to place the component after placing the first one?