What are your top 3 pain points regarding CAD?

[Jaime_Lee]

What are your top 3 pain points regarding CAD? (e.g. UI issues, Productivity issues…)

[BillRyan]

1. Interaction of Family Tables with Windchill. 
   • All Instances and Generic should be iterated, verified along with IA's created/updated anytime the family table prior to checkin.
   • The creation of the IA during verify should not result in an upload to the WC server if auto upload on save is on (significant performance hit)
2. Improving Model Quality.  (Model Check)
3. Supporting user's with Export and Import (Import Data Doctor)

[zmiller]

1) Quality of Creo, we consistently find that we can not release a version of Creo until it gets to around the M100 releases, for example with Creo 4 we tested many version until we got to M080 which seemed good enough to release, after releasing it issues where discovered and we quickly had to move to M090.  This wastes a lot of time testing multiple version and frustrates our users.

2) Lack of some important abilities regarding MBD/3D annotations.  For example not being able to create annotation tables, not being able to relate symbols to other annotations, not being able to control (turn off and on) combined views from the family table, etc... (There is a list the MBD working groups have developed with Michael Fridman)

3) Interaction with WindChill/PDMLink.  We still get a lot of complaints from users, I think a lot is just a lack or training/knowledge but there are some legitimate pain points with family tables and complicated assemblies and dependencies.

[ThomasKirkman]

PTC taking over cocreate and then treating it like the red headed step child.

The lack of help when requested from PTC

The lack of classes for Creo Elements/Direct Modeling

[mbrockman]

not necessarily in order

1.) Exploded states, the default explode state maybe should explode components based upon their assembly constraints. It seems the current paradigm makes the default useless. I'm always starting from scratch.

2.) Drawing BOM balloons. Difficult to select / re-arrange. Leader lines criss-crossing even after 'cleanup boms"

3.) Drawing ordinate dims.  Much more work to create dims. Dims always are placed at the zero origin. The old style had a "select and place" work flow.  Maybe make that a config option to go back to the old way.

some other ones are all ready covered by previous respondents

[MikeBrattoli]

1) MBD/3D annotations need more functionality!  Must be able to create tables (similar to creating drawing tables including Repeat Regions), etc...

2) Smoother interaction between PDMLink and Creo - event manager messaging needs to be improved and assist in identifying issues during check-in/check-out. 

3) Lack of Multi-Body tools

[WilliamLamb]

1. Windchill & PDMLink and the cost of maintaining a supported version in a non profit work environment.

2. User Interface of PDMLink /Windchill is non-intuitive for non-IT staff.

3. Developing simple user applications for Creo.

[akelly]

1. CP4: You should not be required to create an annotation feature just to be able to set a GD&T datum to in-dim like you've been able to do for the past 25 years (e.g. use a feature-of-size as a datum feature and display it per ASME Y14.5). Our business process is moving AWAY from MBD.  We are now using DRAFT GD&T to get around this issue, abandoning the model-based GD&T that was a best-practice.
2. Training is getting dumber. PTC University methods are similar to the wrote memorization techniques from the 19th century and early 20th century.  The emphasis is on task completion rather than actually learning the tool.
3. Emphasis on modeling speed vs. model robustness. e.g. sketches seem to prefer to align to vertices and edges rather than surfaces, datums, and explicit sketch references.  You can complete a sketch x% faster, but you end up spending time later fixing regen failures and redefining features.

[mcendrcn]

1.  I second zmiller's comments on "Lack of some important abilities regarding MBD/3D annotations"

2.  Adding drawing notes.  Indentations and carriage returns are a manual operation.  Creo needs some simple word processing capabilities.

3.  Online training.  PTC University is (a lot of times) outdated.

[jroegner]

1. PTC's looking so far to the future and not focusing on the present.  A prime example is MBD.  We'd love to do it.  However drawings are not going away anytime soon.  I think the transition could happen for most business where people would start to ask for it.  However, without creating an "autocad like" viewport function, now we are creating a model, creating MBD, then creating the drawing that doesn't have a direct tie to the model (update MBD, drawing should match 100%) causing more work with no return and thus makes us NOT use the tool despite I'd like to transition to it.  To often PTC has great new ideas but no plan/mechanism to get from A to B.
2. Hole standards are seriously missing. 
   1. Many sizes are missing. 
   2. SAE isn't even an option (not even by editing the tables because it has an extra step not found in similar holes). 
   3. Pipe threads are a joke.  It's hard to put fluid through a cone with no exit. 
   4. A graphical representation in shaded mode would also be incredibly useful.  It's hard to separate tapped from untapped holes when all you see is a hole in shaded mode.  It wouldn't even have to be accurate, just the ability to distinguish would be enough.
   5. More exit options.
3. Licensing is poorly segregated. (what happened to project Lightning?)
   1. There should be a design, analyze, other high end functions.  I shouldn't have to buy other modules to design a product. (aka draft curve, merge, kinematics (not the study of)).  Your tinker-toy competition SolidWorks and Inventor provide the ability to create a casting (a basic operation).  PTC forces you to buy the Advanced Assembly module to do it.  SolidWorks provides dynamic forces.  PTC forces you to buy the Kinematics module.  There are other functions too. 
   2. Take a seriously look at your licensing and balance it to the competition and/or make it more modular.  Show your tool is better when it is apples-to-apples and then sell us the extra stuff.  Every sales pitch is.."well look at all we are giving you with that extra module, let us show you the value".  If I am buying a fork, I don't care how great the silverware set is, I don't need a knife and spoon.  Maybe I could use the set but I can't tell the value of the fork as that isn't a choice.  And if now all I am looking for is that fork and it is cheaper, I will not be buying the set.
   3. Make your licensing tiered so if I buy a more advanced package, it adds a license to my base and then the advanced package isn't consumed until the function is used.  Works great in SolidWorks. (10 core + 10 premium = 20 core and 10 premium when function is accessed.)  Much easier to balance licenses in SolidWorks.
   4. To recap, it is tiring to have to be shown all these extra functions which we may use but don't need on every seat but need the license for the one function that is standard in the competition. Its cumbersome to manage when a user has to decide their license before starting the application (if we choose to not make them all the same).  It's getting harder and harder to justify, manage and if you can't tell I'm getting tired of the fight!
4.