I will keep that in mind and contact you, if at some point we deem needed. Thank you for reaching out Phil!!!
1. Drawing support: By far my top pain point. We're slow to embrace MBD (but moving that direction). As a result, drawings will be here for a long time still. We still need to be able to create detail drawings efficiently. The past move from CP3 to CP4 was especially painful for many in my company, due to changes in annotations, and caused bad habits and workarounds.
2. GD&T annotations - I prefer to create feature control frames outside of GD&T advisor, and the normal tool allows too much freedom for where various symbols are used. Seems like entire symbol pallet is allowed as an option for the fill in fields for the feature control frame and datum reference frame. I know what is and isn't allowed for each field, but now I have to bounce around the ribbon to find the right symbol in a stack of nonsense symbols. I think I remember when this wasn't so backwards on earlier versions of this software. Maybe there could be a context specific symbol dropdown at each entry line, help users from being "lost in the noise".
3. Importing parts: It sometimes takes time to import parts from vendors correctly. Often they import as surfaces only because something got lost in translation. We have the ability to fix these to an extent, but often it takes considerable time. It's a problem, and we end up having some of our users not even try, so now we have tons of connector models in our library as quilts only, no volume or mass. Importing could be easier, notification of failure to import could shown, layer control of imported parts should definitely be easier (kill the 500 extra nonsense layers). Cleaner imports will result in a cleaner library, allowing us to put our focus on our own design.
1. Managing multiple CAD systems.
2. Standards across multiple divisions.
3. Sharing and collaboration with dissimilar groups.
Before i get started, I do want to echo other users comments that PTC is looking so far ahead into the future that they seem to be failing to fix the tools that got them there. I am all about innovation and such and am pretty excited about some of the new functionality coming, but it seems that all of their resources are being thrown to the new technologies and such that basic processes aren't being addressed, many of which have been on lists to improve for years. Some examples, Notes in drawings are clunky, why can't we get something in there that is more word processing savvy and not a homegrown solution? Another one is getting kicked out of Creo unexpectedly. This happens FAR too often for a software that should be mature enough to handle all of this. I don't want to sound downtrodden and that PTC isnt looking out for us because they do make some improvements in the overall UI, but some of these are just basic usability, and should be able to be fixed pretty easily.
I will agree with cgourru, the lack of support with BIM models is becoming an increasing headache for us. Many times not able to bring in their native data, we have to try to convert to STEP or IGES with another tool, and sadly SolidWorks is becoming my friend for that...
To add to @rsoukup we need an updated smarter relation editor based on a current language. Even using Mathcad as the back end would be great.
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".