In general I've found PTC ignoring the core content in favor of new bells and whistles. The core content used to work really well but recently has gotten harder to use, is inconsistent and I have more crashes than ever.
1) The drawing package has become very cumbersome and really bad compared to some competitors. This is by far the number one complaint in our company. There are many issues here much of it has been to do with the way annotations and GDT are just not as intuitive as they used to be. The whole precision and round dimension check box is a pain and very counter intuitive (showing drawing limits at 4 decimal places while the nominal is 5 decimal places). The show model annotations and the show/hide/erase/delete mix of confusing picks. Drawing notes are a joke compared to others. It needs some kind of basic word processing. In notes when I have a drawing symbol that has variable text imbedded in the note (like a flag note callout) when a new symbol is inserted all the variable text numbers on the other flag notes, sometimes changes, sometimes it doesn't.
2) Windchill has a terrible user interface and is very unintuitive for the normal users. Lots of training and rules are required to ensure trouble free collaboration between team members on a common large assembly. The Creo/Windchill interaction is clunky. I never thought I'd say that I really miss Interlink. I liked the way I could replace models in Intralink by bringing a models in through the back door (operating system).
3) A big time suck for us is bringing in customer and vendor models in a step file made with another package. It's very difficult to import complex geometry from a step file and have it come in as a solid. The Data doctor like many things in Creo is non-intuitive and difficult to use.
Minor annoyances are the analysis and the measure summary box. Why does it always start minimized? Why is it so cumbersome to use. Flag errors in model trees indicate mass properties are not update show up on an inconsistent basis.
Inconsistencies and cumbersome interface are really my biggest complaints. Please improve the core tools and interface you have to make them more user friendly, intuitive and stable compared to the competition before developing new bells and whistles.
In regards to "Minor annoyances are the analysis and the measure summary box. Why does it always start minimized?", the default can be changed to expanded using the config.pro option "measure_dialog_expand".
Actually, there are a couple more good options that we have changed to make the Measure tool much better.
We also have a mapkey "mm" that starts/resets the Measure tool. The workflow being "mm", take your measurement and then "mm" again to create a new measurement.
Note, I cannot speak to why these are not defaults.
Why is it Measure is treated as a different function to other functions, and you cannot use "Esc" to quit, instead you have to close it by checking the close icon?
1) 2D drafting functionality needs improvement, not all engineering data requires or has associated 3D data.
2) Creo Agent being separate from Creo Parametric. We have need for multiple installs on a single system and this causes issues.
3) Large assembly management and performance when opening large data sets.
Thanks for the reply! We are a PTC partner that specializes in 2D->3D translation with PTC products, as well as model performance with large assembly management. We can certainly help with these things.
Feel free to reach out to me directly, at email@example.com - we are happy to have a discussion, and do what we can to help.
1) Drawing performance - When large drawings take 45+ min to open but 3D opens in minutes, there is a problem. The performance hit makes people either want to push towards MDB or back to 2D competitors.
2) 2D Drafting functions - Many older drawings were converted from other formats and are not yet 3D. A better drafting functionality would smooth the transition from 2D to 3D by keeping in the same tool set.
3) Installation deployment for large organizations - Often with larger organizations there is a need for different deployments of settings, and use of automated deployment tools. Would be beneficial if there were easier ways to dynamically deliver the product and setup (settings, psf, modelcheck standards, publishing settings...) to end user machines without a plethora of batch files or third-party packaging tools.
1. Difficulty configuring Creo standard options and ModelCheck for a use across a department.
2. Difficulty (time and effort) to configure "ANSI Standard" (English units) Spec piping precludes it use/setup.
3. Architectural & Engineering Style Drawings (National CAD Standard) are still a requirement for some of our Creo work (mostly AFX and Piping). Drawing enhancements to provide overlap into these disciplines would be very helpful: Sheet Numbering, Section Flag Style, Architectural Scales and View Labels. Presently, these do not fit well with Creo and we have to "fake it" to match the style.
Thank you for considering the above.