Seeing how other software functions is interesting.
This case is a test of the ability of software to handle an unusual case where the geometry has been purposely damaged, but the user doesn't have enough information to recreate the part independently. A few people might have this happen as part of their work, but I would not want an expensive software development effort to fix a problem few people have when there are more universal enhancements to be made.**
If someone brought a metal mold with this complex curvy channel into a machine shop and then bored a big hole in the middle, what would the expectation be of repairing it?
This question boils down to - can software make a surface the user could not create on their own? I think it is interesting that other programs may be able to handle this problem, but it's not a problem Creo Parametric was designed to fix.
I note, for example, that Creo Parametric doesn't handle draped fabric very well and it doesn't have a Compositor for video or a non-linear video editor. All of these come free with Blender, but it is unlikely for PTC to build all these features into Creo Parametric.
It's good to know that using NX or Solidworks is an alternative when managing damaged surfaces. It's not good to complain as if there is no cost to developing a means to resolve this or that it is a software sales driver. Maybe there's a lot of demand for repairing overly-patched surfaces, but I think it is as much as there is repairing brutally damaged molds.
**Yet again, recent post about needing to control part color. First raised before Rev 14, and still not dealt with in a direct manner. The number of items that get different paint colors for different part numbers has got to be more than the number of defective geometry imports that need to be fixed in 2 steps or less, even if the desparation felt by users in the two groups isn't.
