I'm sympathetic to using mesh approaches, hence the last part of my comment focusing more on the physics, etc. vs. requiring BREP.
The main advantages of BREP are:
(1) You capture design intent because of the explicit dimensioning and constraint model, which of course is still not used enough and 2D drawings are useful.
(1a) This intent is often needed (even if just implicitly) during the manufacturing process as machinists, toolmakers, etc. + their software (CAM, G-Code, etc.) convert them into physical parts.
(2) They are human understandable and editable.
(3) The legacy ecosystem uses old CAD, and it's very hard to switch - ie Boeing isn't putting 777 in a new CAD unless it has some massive advantage.
So having BREP, or perhaps a mixed approach like you suggest with the feel of BREP (feature tree, direct modeling, etc.) approach would ease the transition.
The main advantages of BREP are:
(1) You capture design intent because of the explicit dimensioning and constraint model, which of course is still not used enough and 2D drawings are useful.
(1a) This intent is often needed (even if just implicitly) during the manufacturing process as machinists, toolmakers, etc. + their software (CAM, G-Code, etc.) convert them into physical parts.
(2) They are human understandable and editable.
(3) The legacy ecosystem uses old CAD, and it's very hard to switch - ie Boeing isn't putting 777 in a new CAD unless it has some massive advantage.
So having BREP, or perhaps a mixed approach like you suggest with the feel of BREP (feature tree, direct modeling, etc.) approach would ease the transition.