Hmm... Artpearl, not easy to reply in one sentence.

Personally I find the FE intuitive. Of course I would not try to model a car. However for clouds, terrain, mats etc its really cool and very flexible. "Clouds" of nodes can be compiled into a Metanode and you can extract the relevant parameters, so you have a convenient editor for your purpose. Of course going deeper into the FE eats up a lot of time and its not something you do when you are working on a composition.
Also handling the FE requires a lot of experience and practice. For example I guess that if I were
a mathematician I would not be much better off. 

Lets take the example of a tornado. Sure, if you are skilled enough you can create an object that comes somewhere close the shape of a tornado. But even if Vue allowed you to assign a cloud texture I bet it would still look fake and if you tried to animate it, it would probably look rather ridiculous. And btw. the tornado I created, even though it looks somewhat rea,l is a simplified model. I just tried to capture the key elements which are: The trunk, the spiral, the surrounding sky, the dirt/dust/water which is  soaked up, and of course the texture. All those elements need to be in relation and should kind of interact. In this case you cannot separate the object from the texture. Its one one giant phenomenon.

As for shapes, sure you have basic shapes like a sphere, cylinder, cube etc  by using a Math Tooth node, sometimes in combination with other nodes.
For example I tried to create a cube with smooth edges (like the object Mazak posted not very long ago) and it worked (Hypertexture).
Once created in the FE you can deform them anyway you want with vectors. This is something you cannot do with imported shapes.

I agree it`s not as convenient as using imported objects and texturing them.
Also you cannot see the shapes in the 3D views, only in the preview.

I understand if for you it`s not very intuitive and straight forward.

http://www.eonmusic.ch http://www.artmatica.ch