Well, IronCAD is basically non parametric. Despite that, there is the possibility to use a command called the “mate align constraint tool”. Moving a hole then carries the screw with it, if it was constrained with that tool. This is an alternative positioning possibility that many IronCAD users may not use, since the Triball moves everything so swiftly to where ever you want it. And then there are those "smart dimensions" too... In my opinion there are too many copycat parametrical cad systems, and too few constraint free cad systems on the market. The “up” side with no-constraints, is that it never stalls because you haven't put in the last constraint. This speeds up conceptual work tremendously. And you can always change or remove any part or feature from anything in the assembly model no matter what’s in the history tree, before or after the changed part or feature. The tree will never get those “red berries”. And with parametrical, it may be close to impossible to foresee what a change will bring, especially when someone else has set those parameters up. The downside with all the freedom is very much the same as the upside. It’s very (maybe too) easy to make changes in the parts, and also unlink them, from within an assembly. Just like when somebody else explodes all your blocks in an acad dwg. Anarchy could prevail if you don’t watch out carefully. For companies making small series of machines, all very different with a few hundred parts or so, a non-parametric, constraint free cad (read IronCAD) would probably be the best way to go, but for companies designing a range of products with similar and a foreseeable layout, a parametric cad system is of course superior. Then there are all the different shades of grey between. This is when choosing the right CAD system becomes so very difficult. One thing I really miss with IronCAD, aside from large model drawing performance, is a mechanism movement simulation module. /per
