You really think it's easier to have to click, click, click to get a dimension than to simply look at the display? Really? If you like it that way, that's fine, but it's not more convenient. The math says otherwise.
More clicking = Less convenient
I'm working, as so many people do, in a system that has blended inch and mm dimensions. How perfect it would be to see BOTH each time I measure.
But I suppose you prefer a myriad of buttons over a zipper.
You can call it SolidQuirks or whatever (comparative revenues say otherwise), but if it can outperform Creo in so many ways, wouldn't you want to add those functionalities and at least have them as an option? I mean, Creo is finally adding multi-body capability, which SolidWorks has had for close to two decades, which is an incredibly powerful tool in the right hands, and they just bought Onshape which hopefully will bring a new era of usability and interface improvements...I can only hope. You do realize that it is the same people that started SolidQuirks that started Onshape, right, with a relentless philosophy of modernization. So the brass at PTC must have some respect for their efforts.
As a consumer that writes a check every year for my CAD software, I would like to get something for my money, not just the bland, annual updates that is typical throughout the entire industry. If you were paying for the software, wouldn't you also want more features, more options, and so on? At least something for your maintenance fees?
Fascinating how many people there are in technical industries that are happy with the status quo and are happy doing their job the way the software dictates. Or maybe they just are scared of change?
"You do realize that it is the same people that started SolidQuirks that started Onshape"
And these same people used to work for PTC before starting SoidWorks!
"Creo is finally adding multi-body capability, which SolidWorks has had for close to two decades"
Unigraphics and NX have had multi-body capability since UGSolids was released in the early 1990's, so almost 30 years now, before SW was even formed. Not surprising that the SW team choose the same solid modeling engine as Unigraphics used, Parasolid, which is what allows multi-body capability.
Multi-body modeling isn't needed, or from my use of it in NX 8.5, even an advantage. I can use quilts in Creo and get the same result without the downsides I've seen in NX. Yeah, ok, if the flavor of the month is now multi-body, fine, add it. I'm more interested in volume sweeps, REAL capability in that area, not the limited capability in S/W.
In another thread I posted models that S/W simply COULDN'T create when I was evaluating it. Yawn.
Most of the people that I've run into that oppose multi-body modeling simply don't understand it. I've converted a few people who now agree with me that it's one of SolidWorks most powerful tools, especially in their Weldments environment (now called Structural).
Although I agree with you that SolidWorks has limited abilities, so does Creo. And where SolidWorks is limited, few of those limits are huge in my opinion. In other words, I have been able for around 20 years to do over 99% of what I need to do with SolidWorks. Very rarely have I had to "cheat" the geometry to get what I want or "close enough". My biggest complaint is that they can't handle the ZTG coming out of Pro and other CAD. Importing those files is hell.
Considering some of the features that you personally want, you would have to admit that some of the examples you gave are somewhat esoteric or can be achieved through slightly less-convenient processes. Do you really think most Creo users draw stuff like that?
In some cases, realize that in SolidWorks, if you can draw a 3D sketch (something I can't find in Creo, is it there??), then you can create complex sweeps quite often, and if it's hard to sketch in 3D but you can define it mathematically, then you can do a table or equation driven 3D sketch and get the crazy profile you are looking for.
I've seen hundreds of thousands of files generated in Pro and Creo and really never saw anything like the examples you gave.
So as far as software functionality goes, yes, I would like to be able to generate the geometry I desire, but overall I want the experience to be easy. I don't want to feel tortured to create the most basic designs. In the past, I have hired ex-Pro users to use SolidWorks. They were amazed at how prolific I was with such an "inadequate" software.
I would love to see any examples you can give about using quilts instead of multibody. I'm looking at parts that represent welded assemblies, for example, which may include a lot of sheetmetal, structural shapes, and a few machined parts here and there. And then to be able to automatically generate a cut-list and individual body details on a drawing, all from the part environment so there are no mates to haul around at the assembly level and also no out-of-context relationships that can break, priceless. Also to be able to do Boolean is quite often very convenient.
SolidWorks has a library of structural shapes that can be used in the Weldments feature, I'm sure Creo has this as well, but I can do it all in a part with SolidWorks and avoid mates. I hear Creo uses the assembly mode for Weldments. Some SolidWorks users have asked for this option...to be able to do weldments as an assembly. So why not have the option in SolidWorks to do weldments in a part or assembly? And I ask also, why not in Creo?
The point is that unless there is one and only one perfect way to do something, shouldn't the user be allowed to choose?
Show me some examples, I'm very interested.
"The point is that unless there is one and only one perfect way to do something, shouldn't the user be allowed to choose?"
This flexibility comes at a cost to software designs in providing the options and the configuration controls to set up a multi-design method.
One of the statements we used to say about Unigraphics was:
What is the best thing about UG? The multiple ways to do things.
What is the worst thing about UG/ The multiple ways to do things.
And that was used inside the development team of UG, too. I have had many friends who worked there when I used UG for 20 years.