With all due respect, I think a better understanding and adoption of surfacing features, functions and workflow would solve your issues rather than SW programmers changing the software to suit you.
If you can show the forum specific issues that you are having I'm sure that you will be gifted with viable solutions to make you work processes easier.
thanks for helping to find a solution by suggesting I should learn how to use SW.
I can't show any details of parts that aren't released to the public. After SEMA show I can.
My problem is that I have to many products to design in a very short time, so I can't afford time consuming procedures to overcome missing functions. The function "surface properties" is probably not to hard to program and that would do the trick for me. I'm sure there are many designers like me who use the surface modeling all day long and who would appreciate this function.
Do you have any contact to the SW programming department.
Here's the thing. If you're gonna save money by using SolidWorks, you're gonna spend extra time "playing these time consuming strategies". SW just doesn't do self-intersection very well, and it's not going to. They aren't going to change that so you can keep avoiding buying something more expensive. Surfacing in SW has always been a case of developing workarounds. They have made significant leaps forward at times, but regardless of what they do, it will never be enough, you'll always have to figure out work arounds. If it were easy, anybody could do it.
You can split out the offending area and thicken it separately, or manually thicken the entire part. I've had to do this several times. Automotive is not the only application that runs into practical plastics modeling problems. It happens in furniture, consumer products, medical products, toys, anywhere you have to make thin walled parts.
I understand that fixing the thickening problem, would be asking for too much, but adding a rather simple function to gather "surface properties" shouldn't be too hard to develop.
Eric,.. no argument from me.. it would be wonderful "if" they could offer a alternative shell feature.. which allowed for a range/tolerance/percent of the desired wall.. ...maybe having a SubD algorithm kick in and generate a patch... or trim back the overlaps/folds/intersects for the user to resolve as needed?