I bought v25 because of what it had to offer and I had to overlook what it doesn't . Don't suppose it stopped me from harping but either way I've gotten my use out of the software
At this point I only see adding these tools as fluff , anyone can program woodruffs and radius mills with simple 2d toolpathing . The only place I see it to be of benefit is in simulation , which I find it impossible to justify the expense if that's the case .
lollypop options on the other hand are a good thing as long as they are being use 3 dimensionally , cross holes and the likes are great to deburr with a lollypop .
The only thing that would ever encourage me to upgrade again is if there was more to the core , I may sound like a broken record but the 2d is weak with few options , face milling for example is tragic , zigzag toolpaths only create a piss poor surface finish because the tool is not constant , it is climb milling then conventional milling . I could use the zag but I'm no fan of air cutting . I always end up creating geometry then use the pocket feature at z0 , it's not what I consider to be efficient but it works . Btw , why does face milling default to .5 , shouldn't that be zero ?
Also there are simple inefficiencies such as the fact that the software will not retain the tool info from one op to the next . I tend to use the same tool for numerous operations , and each time I have to go to the library , pick the tool , then once again add the speeds and feeds . Speaking of tool library , it would be great if bc can automatically pull my library rather than me having to import it each time I want to use bc . What would also be nice is if bc didn't default to automatic tool numbering , there's a reason that I created a tool library to begin with .
You mentioned that people are happy with the direction that the software is going and this is something that I haven't been able to figure out . 5 axis is cool and all but 3 axis is still the dominant force in the industry . I use rotary's every day but all of the programming that I do is treated as three axis then edited into 4 axis programs using g52 shifts or macro programming which calculates the shift with every rotation . I personally don't like wizards or the idiot proofing that many of the software companies are adding to the softwares . simplicity and good feature options are the most efficient way of getting things done . which is why I prefer to see more 2d toolpath options , anyone wanting to understand what I'm talking about should take a look at mastercam . I get that bc isn't mastercam or carries the same price weight , but theres a reason why mc is one of the leaders who is also moving ahead .
Don't get me wrong I'm not here to criticize , but simply pointing out my preferences in a software which are probably irrelevant to other users desires . Working in the business for over 20 years has taught me a lot about efficiency and I program to the beat of my own drum , creating and working from solids is great when needed , and they are purely unnecessary and inefficient when 2d will suffice