They get paid to keep improving their products with sales of their products.
No they don't. They get paid for the current product/version the customer purchases. They are not being paid to keep improving their products.
Yes, the revenue can be used to do updates but that is at their discretion. Yes, we all demonstrate a bit of faith that whoever we purchase from will continue development.
I have included the following as an example of something simple. When the part is set up by the wrapping gadget the distance around the shaft is used as one of the axis, I will use Y for this example. The y value of the workpiece is pi * 6 or 18.8495. Pocket or mortise would be drawn where? Yes, the centerline could be put at an ordinal point, but what does the user do when describing the width of the pocket? Key in the actual dimensions? But that would not be consistent with locating other features rotated around the circumference, those would need to be trigged out (or use the cad program to find them more easily). And that is just for centerlines, other features just get worse. All very inconsistent, all very messy, all leading to gross errors.
As others have pointed out the current Vectric model does not support your idea. Sure, a simple mortise might work out fine, but then users have a nasty habit of moving on from there (just like your students). One band aid leads to another, resources are spent creating bandaids, not on robust solutions. Not a good model to operate a business on.
And IF we are actually paying for future development as you tend to believe then I think the money is best spent on robust solutions rather than quick, dirty and lowdown solutions to make a handful of users happy.
And all of this does not address the issue raised previously about getting an ROI for their developments efforts. It is easy for someone to say that if they write it, the users will make it pay off. Uh huh, I have first hand experience with that. . . .never happened. I would love to see Vectric come out with a great 4th axis piece of software.
Long gone are the DOS days when we slapped features on willy nilly. I go back to MS Basic Pro (which could be compiled) and using HALO drivers for graphics. Actually I go back to the TI 994A and the Commodore 64, but I did not write any commercial software on those machines.
When it comes to things like this I think along these lines:
"If I knew a few really good programmers who wanted to write this kind of software, would I hand them over thousands of dollars in the hopes that I would get a ROI on my investment?" Short answer: not only NO, but HECK NO!!!!
Right now, one thing I would really like to see before anything rotary is an impovement in the roughing algorithm. None of us like watching it cut air, none of us are enthralled with "rest machining".