Solid Edge Ready to Take Off

Though never faulted for its technical prowess, Solid Edge has languished in the MCAD market as the spotlight often shines on SolidWorks and Inventor (see  my post "The Best MCAD Program You Won't Buy" June 2006).  But lately, Siemens PLM's Synchronous Technology, which is poised to introduce updates to Solid Edge and NX this summer, has received an incredible amount of press -- and just about all of it favorable. I wonder if all this adulation threatens to shatter Solid Edge's reputation as the CAD industry's best-kept secret.

What is all the fuss about? To find out, I flew to Toronto, where Siemens was introducing Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology at the CN Tower. I listened to claims of how Synchronous Technology will save money ("over $76,000 per year") and time ("100X faster"). No CAD software introduction would be complete without such claims, though the numbers may vary. Siemens was pushing how fast you could change parts-- not just Solid Edge parts but parts from rival CAD companies. One assembly contained Solid Edge, SolidWorks and Inventor parts, though it did not seem to matter. Solid Edge was able to make changes in a part without regard to what application was used in its creation. More importantly, part changes were made without any consideration of the original history tree and without requiring a rebuilding afterward. Changes were pretty darn quick!

We are told that it is Synchronous Technology and Live Rules which allow Solid Edge to recognize features -- even in imported parts -- and allow for such quick edits. Sure enough, on a simple part, moving one face on a part picks up coplanar faces and moves them as well. The program also picks up concentric circles and common dimensions. All changes happen quickly, seamlessly. No rebuilding takes place.

(courtesy Siemens)
Siemens claims that with Synchronous Technology, editing time does not increase appreciably as models get more complex. Their studies prove that parts with upward of 2,000 faces which would take an hour to rebuild happen in practically no time with Synchronous Technology.

Having experienced difficulty in changing SolidWorks models, I can appreciate the advantage such quick editing would have. I am by no means alone. Synchronous Technology is a surprisingly active subject among leading and influential SolidWorks bloggers. While reaction often include "what's the big deal?" or "we've been able to do that for years," a certain amount of respect and envy is apparent.

If Synchronous Technology is as good as it seems, what's to stop other CAD companies from doing the same? I ask Dan Staples, Director of Solid Edge. Patents are being applied for, for one thing. Also, Dan reminds me Siemens owns D-Cubed (the constraint manager in Solid Edge) and Parasolid (the geometry kernel), a fact that should translate into a better utilization of both products. I imagine the developers at D-Cubed and Parasolid have saved a few tricks for the company that issues their paychecks. Could it be some undocumented features are never found by the competitors?

History-less applications seem to be quite the rage these days. There's newcomer SpaceClaim, a resurgent CoCreate, the venerable IronCAD and Kubotek KeyCreator, both now enjoying a vindication of sorts. In fact, so pervasive and overwhelming is history-less modeling in current discussion that I can't remember what advantage a history tree had. A champion of history trees needs to come forward -- if they have not all gone into hiding, that is.

So, what makes Synchronous Technology different than this current crop of history-less modelers? Answer: Solid Edge with ST leaves the parametrics in. You can still control the model using parameters thereby preserving design intent.

Dan sees the next version of Solid Edge so radically different that he won't even call it V21, referring to it instead only as Solid Edge with ST. How is this any different a marketing tack than SolidWorks and their SWIFT, I ask. Ah, SWIFT still leaves SolidWorks history-based, doesn't it? We've done away with the history tree entirely, says Dan. A history is just something CAD companies have added on top of the geometry kernel. We've been working for several years to find a way to do away with it.

The folks at Siemens seem genuinely excited, perhaps even surprised by the buzz Synchronous Technology has created. In my short take, it looks good. Maybe Synchronous Technology will be the engine on which Solid Edge finally takes off.

Comments

[Toby Lenton]

Cain I just checked out your Solid Edge Tutorials at http://www.solidedgetutorials.com - they are great but still don't understand why you're giving them away for free? Is there a catch?

[Cain Sanchez]

Hey, Just wanted to let you all know that Solid Edge video tutorials are available at www.solidedgetutorials.com and are offering some free downloads for a limited time!
We are soon to release Solid Edge Tutorials for Synchronous Technology!

Thanks,
Cain. NSW, Australia

[Mick Best (Consulting Engr.)]

As an engineer and realist, I see it this way. I've used Autocad Inventor, ProE, Solid Edge, Solid Works, NX and Catia. Siemens AKA UGS (Unigraphics) seems to be the only corporation involved in R&D. SpaceClaim cant save both Data and Geometry and Synchronous does. If Siemens wasn't an open sharing corporation they would pull the use of D-Cubed and Parasolid. If they did that all these software companies would die out. NX and Solid Edge Velocity series software is the future for companies that want to do continue to do business in the real world. Do yourself a favor and

[Alex]

Hi

Can anyone here explain to me how this synchronous technology from Siemens is different from Spaceclaim ?

[Raj]

Sure it is a new technology. cheers. I had red one article from the following site. It shows parametric modeling is safer. I got confused.

Please visit:
http://egsindia.blogspot.com/

Read the following topic:

'Synchronous Technology from Siemens - History-Free modelling - Myth or Reality?'

Anybody please give your comment about this topic.

[Dora Smith]

Roopinder, thanks for your comments. We agree synchronous technology will enable Solid Edge to "take off" and lead the market. Regarding your comments on Parasolid/D-Cubed saving a few "tricks" just for Siemens PLM, afraid that would go against our open philosophy. Believe it or not, our Solid Edge and NX development folks did the hard work of writing an application layer on top of Parasolid/D-Cubed the way any of our competitors can (and do today). So no undocumented Parasolid features, just some smart R&D by the NX and Solid Edge folks. (Sorry Ralph, nothing sinister - http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/secret-like-microsoft.html ).

[bala]

I need solid edge tutorial.

[Alec Thorne, Schott Systeme GmbH]

Interesting. We have been promoting the direct modification of solid models for over 10 years now, always faced with the question from users "but its not parametric". Its good to see CAD users and vendors finally opening up to the idea of non feature based modelling.

[Derrek Cooper]

Great post.. I am waiting anxiously for the ability to download SE w. ST. First, the fact that the interface has been spruced up with ribbons etc (simialr to Spaceclaim), I am hoping that the workflow is improved.

I have always felt that with d-cubed/parasolid, SE should be crushing SW/Inventor on ease of use and "coolness", but quite frankly - it has always been a bit clunky to use, once you get the hang of it, it's ok - but lacks the slickness of the others.

I am stepping up as histroy-based guy as it is what I have always dealt with and rely on when creating geometry. I spend most of my time dealing with ALL the cad systems so that I can prepare geometry for a parametric design study using CFD. So having fillets, chamfers as features that I can quickly go through and suppress is very helpful. But it has its limitiations.

When SC came onto the scene, I was really excited. Where SC has come up short is the ability to "maintain the parametrics" as you state above. It is absolutely crucial to be able to drive parameters in the model - having "loose" constraints just opens yourself up for many issues downstream.

I'll be posting on SE w. ST as soon as I get my hands on it.

[Josh]

Hey Roopinder, great post. I gotta admit that being a SolidWorks user, ST interests me. But, the inventor2009 interface looking like spaceclaim also interests me. I'm pretty much a cad geek, but really I'm mostly amazed at the influence the CAD companies have on each other and what prompts ideas for future development.

It's an interesting field you got yourself into my friend! :)

[Jon Banquer]

For years I've complained that SolidWorks doesn't have the proper tools to deal with non-native imported data. I've also said that SolidWorks doesn't have the tools needed if you have to work with someone else's design. SolidWorks has done nothing about my numerous requests for better tools in these two areas!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has to work with non-native data or someone else's designs. I've had enough and so have many other Solidworks users.

It's my sincere hope that other vendors like SpaceClaim can catch up to what Siemens is offering. It looks to me like Siemens is *years ahead* of where anyone else is right now. The more CAD and CAM vendors who offer the right tools the better but lets never forget that it was Siemens who led the way to a better mouse trap not SolidWorks Corp. who stopped listening to their users and became a follower instead of a market leader technology wise.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA