I can understand that, having experienced something similar myself. The problem with users wanting things is they're often things that aren't really compatible with your vision, so you have to compromise and eventually, if you "succeed", you end up being a giant mess that everybody complains about like ANSYS.
Supporting multiple solvers is surely going to mean having solver-specific features, isn't it? Which would eat away at what seems like your vision. Or are you able to keep it abstracted from that so they really are interchangeable?
Supporting multiple solvers is surely going to mean having solver-specific features, isn't it? Which would eat away at what seems like your vision. Or are you able to keep it abstracted from that so they really are interchangeable?