23 comments

• 

  muenzer

  1 year ago

  Looks very cool. But when things get that easy to change do you start to worry about unintentional changes? Maybe I'm just an old coot who doesn't want to give up his model tree.
  reply
• 

  SolidModeler

  1 year ago

  This new technology seems that it is the next great thing since parametric modeling and sliced bread. I might actually take a look at Solid Edge.
  reply
• 

  Ken

  1 year ago

  Not sure if you saw, but there is a white paper that goes into much greater depth than the video. Unfortunately you must register to get it, but well worth the read to help with the comprehension :)
  https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/forms/re...
  reply
• 

  Marijn

  1 year ago

  It looks like simple mesh editing like in 3dsmax and blender only then with mates.
  The only thing that i am concerned about is the part when the program is making the decision that some parts will be modified with each other. If this goes wrong it will go very wrong.
  And letting a program making design decisions for you is not a good idea.
  But i like the 3dsmax/solidworks clone idea.
  reply
• 

  ralphg

  1 year ago

  Hey, the term "Synchronous Technology" was generated by Germans. Just be glad it's not known as Technologysynchronous with a few umlauts thrown in.
  reply
• 

  fcsuper

  1 year ago

  Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head Marijn. It is like 3DSMax. I was trying to think of what it reminded me of.
  
  And about UGS's NX and SE...see my comment on Matt Write's to his article. :)
  reply
• 

  Greg M

  1 year ago

  That was definitely a cool demo, and while SpaceClaim has some buzz, this is largely what us CoCreate (now PTC) users have enjoyed for years.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  This is not new and not alone in the market. The anouncement was done as Dassault Systems is getting ready to anounce V6 this week, that also contains the history free, B-rep editing, but inculding high level surfacing. SpaceClaim was created by Mike Payne (former Dassault employee) who is using the kernal from Spatial. It is very cool in demo's but there are limitations. Template and knowledge capture, design control, modeling for manufacturabilty, DOE, Optimization, etc. lose their effectiveness quickly with this type of modleing. Really CAD models are pointless, it is what you do with them where the value is and if you decrease the effeiciency of down stream use what is the value of creating something quickly.
  
  If is was so great, Co-Create would have never been bought and SpaceClaim would be killing everyone in the market. This works for the small guys, but the big guys need so much more. Now as an add-on there may be value, it all depends on how well it integrates with everything else inside of PLM.
  reply
• 

  rocker

  1 year ago

  i dont think even catia v6 will have an equivalent functionality, so what are you waiting for bernard, splurge a little an grab spaceclaim,it's not that expensive or you simply loose ground!
  reply
• 

  zxys

  1 year ago

  I think you guys see this as well, it's like a internal celebration?... that is, it's NOT really all that new or as far as what we have now but it seem to bridge direct-parametric-dimension driven techs very well within their environments? (and that is great news!).. but this is also very important in providing the avenue for Siemens, as a company with their own internal interoperability needs/wants/issues/workflows, and a company needing to sell/market (read, competition against... Catia/SolidWorks and Pro/e/CoCreate,..) a attractive new integrated technology too their existing NX/SE customers and new customers!
  NX5 is/was kewl enuf (just think back,.. version 18 was just around the corner... what a change, really!!) but adding this on top is very attractive and exciting for UGS users!! If I were a NX user, I'd be very excited!
  reply
• 

  CADMan

  1 year ago

  The ability to have history and non-history in a single environment has been enjoyed by IronCAD users for over 10 years now. Many systems are either non-history or history. As mentioned, many are trying to add the non-history editing to the history environment. However, there are many other aspects that really help make the system more productive to the user in addition to this functionality. For IronCAD users, these announcements are old news and others are really now just scratching the surface.
  reply
• 

  hui2008

  1 year ago

  I am newer here, but I would like say "Synchronous Technology is a good thing." :)
  reply
• 

  Bob Mileti

  1 year ago

  Wow what a lot of sour grapes... I played with this yesterday at the EASTEC show and trust me IronCAD, Spaceclaim, and Co-Create can't hold a candle to Synchronous Technology. Most here who are being critical sound like those AutoCAD users who still insist they can still out perform any 3D modeler with AC12.
  
  This is "game changing" technology, and if your so entrenched in your ways then that's fine. Just don't mouth off about anything you have no real understanding of. I only hope this thread is so quiet over the past 10 days is due to reality setting in!
  reply
• 

  Josh

  1 year ago

  Hey Bob! Thanks for the comment. Fill us in! I think the Live Rules and active dimensioning of the solid are the most attractive feature to me. I'm wondering how it all acts with complicated parts and assemblies. any thoughts?
  reply
• 

  Jon Banquer

  1 year ago

  Bob,
  
  I agree with you when you say it's “game changing” technology. It's just pathetic to see Synchronous Technology labeled/called "Ho-Hum" technology by those who have no clue and are just covering their own SolidWorks special interests.
  
  I think someone should be asking Mike Payne of SpaceClaim how long it would take to integrate SpaceClaim technology with SolidWorks or Inventor and if the same level or greater of functionality could be obtained that Siemens has shown they have with Solid Edge and NX with Synchronous Technology.
  
  Jon Banquer
  San Diego, CA
  reply
• 

  Bob Mileti

  1 year ago

  Josh, I watched a demo whereby a CNC Vise was widened using ST. It allowed full freedom to widen the vise using symmetry (from center) to all parts associated with the edit. You had full capability to select which parts were edited, and the beauty was this was all done at the Assembly level. Also features were graphed from one part to another from within the Assembly. In the past things like this could cause a "ripple effect" through the other parts that had associative relationships with the one part being edited. This in itself will save countless hours.
  
  I've been using CAD for over 25 years and I'm very reserved in my enthusiasm for new technologies unless they are smart and intuitive. I'd be the first person to cry foul, if this was just smoke and mirrors. Sure there may be a few bumps in the road early on, but from what I saw first hand, I'm truly impressed. This reminds me of when I moved from wire frame CAD to parametric CAD. It's that refreshing!
  reply
• 

  svenomatic

  1 year ago

  It's always hard to except the new and especially if it looks like it's a threat to how things are being done in the field by us, the crème de la crème. Everyone will catch up and the pros will still be the pros. Being able to build something with a tree will still be valuable because that is something that will never completely go away. With a tree you can reason and explain why and how one came up with a specific design. If you have no history it will be hard to remember how the darn thing evolved. Evolution is more important than we want to admit. I am an Industrial Designer now and I am being asked almost every day: “How did you come up with this idea; thing; beauty; monster? One will have to explain. There is a tread you can follow back - if you have a tree. Bosses and customers get turned off if you tell them you just came up with it out of the blue or - you went through too many steps to trace back how you got here, there, whatever. Does Synchronous Technology keep a history of what has been changed? when and where? It will be important. New tricks will be helpful but old once are better. I was trained as a model maker in the late eighties when CAD was synchronous with G-code. When the real CAD back then like Pro-E and Alias|Studio rolled around, everyone said model making is dead. And look - they still build scale models out of tangible materials today; and lots of them. Solidworks and CATIA will catch up. Everyone will catch up. It’s the nature of evolution. But then there is SketchUp and it’s free. Has anyone lost their job to someone who can do SketchUp? Embrace the new and enjoy the old.
  reply
• 

  Bob Mileti

  1 year ago

  Svenomatic: "I am an Industrial Designer now and I am being asked almost every day: “How did you come up with this idea; thing; beauty; monster? One will have to explain. There is a tread you can follow back - if you have a tree."
  
  Sorry but I doubt Michaelangelo was asked to explain how he came up with David... nor did he need a history tree to create other great pieces of art and design.
  
  As an Industrial Designer as well, I look at CAD as just another tool in the process. Hand sketches for ideation and CAD for documentation is my principle method for design. Anyone who relies on tools available in CAD for inspiration are limiting their ability to be creative in my opinion.
  
  Why I'm so enthused about ST in Solid Edge, is because for the first time there's a CAD program that now favors creativity versus the documentation side of the process. The History may be helpful in recreating the documentation part of the model, but it certainly has no critical place in the creative development of a design.
  
  If you let your "boss" define your value by your creative solutions simply by the "history tree" in a CAD model, then he/she has no true understanding of design or problem solving.
  
  Furthermore the pinnacle of good design, is simplicity... and unfortunately for the designer it'll always seem obvious once completed. The truth is: "simple is hard" and "complicated is easy"; so therefore forget about validating a good design with a history tree and stop defining your good design by giving credit to the CAD program. Software is only a tool and hopefully ST will be a better one then we have now.
  reply
• 

  svenomatic

  1 year ago

  Okay Michaelangelo. It’s Michelangelo - if you refer to the Italian renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer. Here you are an Industrial Designer and on Matt's blog you claim to be an Industrial Engineer. I think you are an Industrial Chameleon. I hope Siemens is good to you. Everyone in the field knows the creative part happens 90% pre-CAD. But that is the curvy stuff and figuring out what features and tricks the product will have. A box full of napkin sketches and all the other wall paper created make for good history. I'm thinking more of what happens after. The structural stuff you know? And what about collisions and interferences? If you would work on very large or very complex products, which Michelangelo didn't, let’s say a 65 meter yacht, you will deal with lots of different people in lots of different disciplines plus vendors, sub-contractors, etc. Some of them just need to know what you did; on the mechanical level; to be able to wrap their bean around the project. And if they can roll back and forth you have much less explaining to do. Let me ask you: What about “In Context Features” and “External References”?
  
  I am not saying I don't want "ST" - if it is the real thing. If it really works and it comes to a CAD application on a computer near me, I will take it in with vigor and excitement and use it to my fullest advantage. I would enjoy doing swoopy stuff faster. All I'm saying is that the old tree is not a bad thing to have around.
  reply
• 

  Bob Mileti

  1 year ago

  @svenomatic - I don't understand you attacking me just because I made a very common mis-spelling of Michelangelo on this blog. You then go on to ridicule me as to the fact that I am an Industrial Designer (by education) however most of my day is spent as a Design Engineer in the development of custom packaging equipment and not an Industrial Engineer as you mis-state above. Again the personal attacks on me personally on such trivial points is totally off base.Seems like your more interested in insulting others then explaining yourself... Start by trying to explain why a vendor needs to see the history tree of a finished part...What's with you svenomatic?
  reply
• 

  svenomatic

  1 year ago

  I apologize to Bob. We work in different worlds.
  reply
• 

  Jon Banquer

  1 year ago

  Synchronous Technology is a tool that has been badly needed for many years in SolidWorks. Why aren't more people demanding to know when SolidWorks will have it? Perhaps because many/most SolidWorks users get paid to remodel the part. Perhaps because many/most SolidWorks users think they own their design intent for life and don't want others to modify their model? Siemens/UGS has the potential to tap into this frustration on the part of many of us who are sick of being held hostage in this manner.
  reply
• 

  Jon Banquer

  1 year ago

  I've put links to all the Synchronous Technology videos posted to You Tube on my blog along with descriptions of what they show so others can see just how powerful Synchronous Technology is for themselves.
  
  Jon Banquer
  San Diego, CA
  reply