I hate to say it but you can work around a poor UI but not a lack of tools.

After using a system for the last 3 years that has a great UI but limited tools it has become clear that if I have to choose between the tools and UI it will be the tools. I hope they choose a mature cam system that already has an extremely strong core set of tools in place. I am also looking forward to see what the Onshape partners come up with for a cam system. Probably could trace it's roots back to the 1980's in the aerospace industry. I am pretty sure the HSM idea started way before the HSMWorks Kernel was even thought of. However that developer no longer works at HSMWorks either. If I am not mistaken when the adaptive kernel was first written they tried to sell just the kernel to CAM developers and could not get anyone to bite and it eventually became the core of HSMWorks. While there may be differences in the core theories, I would not say HSMworks is way ahead of them. The HSM developers were the first to figure out the algorithm for constant chip load and make trochoidal toolpaths work, hence they have been evolving the Adaptive Clearing toolpath far longer than anyone else, and as a result are a long way ahead with its maturity. So it becomes a problem when using small diameter tools and the chip load varies on tight internal corners. So it has to adjust the feeds & speeds to compensate for that. iMachining isn't able to accurately calculating constant chip load based on in process stock. That isn't a good thing and represents a fundamental difference in approach between Adaptive Clearing and iMachining. IMachining takes the guess work out of feeds and speeds for different milling situations and adjusts them dynamically throughout the roughing, i.e.

Solidcam fourm