Synchronous Technology Pt 2

Huntsville, Alabama will not live up to your expectations of the deep South. Everyone is from somewhere else. I have yet to hear a drawl. I am told Huntsville has the highest concentration of PhDs and the second biggest number of supercomputers in the US. It's also supposed to be quite the little hotspot. I wouldn't know. I've spent the whole day immersed in synchronous technolgoy at the Solid Edge "headquarters" inside a a vast industrial park ("2nd biggest in the US").

It was great to finally spend all day with the software I had read so much about. Also, being able to ask questions of Siemens PLM directly was much appreciated. My goal was to learn if synchronous technology was more than hype. Was it the revolution many were claiming? I had been shown many demos, but it's too easy to dazzle with hand picked simple parts. How would synchronous technology behave on more complex geometry? I had bought several "real world" models with me to test.

But first I had to sit through some marketing presentations (which I had already seen) and then undergo basic training (which I probably needed). Precious little time was left for testing my samples. I was given a demo of Solid Edge with synchronous technology. I'll hope for a rainy day to run my samples.

So my conclusions at the end of the day are short of an unequivocal thumbs up or thumbs down for synchronous technology. But the following seems clear:

1. Synchronous technology does indeed look like a valuable tool, based upon the demos I've seen, what I've read, and now the little hands on experience I've had.
2. The advantage of editing a solid model without the encumbrance of history is undeniable.

I'm sure synchronous technology will be embraced by the existing Solid Edge user base.

As a reader points out in previous comments, users can be resistant to change. But I think just changing one part may be all the convincing they will need to believe in synchronous technology.

Comments

MattJ,
Autodesk already have capabilities 'similar' to those of Sync'T in their solids editing functions but they are are not a great implementation.
Sync'T's capabilities, their importance and usefulness were well known to Autodesk but just as CAD users can be resistant to change so too are CAD software developers, they are 'human', I think ;-)
They suffer from exactly the same resistance to change their customers do, however; they choose to think they are in 'control of change' and therefore need consider, only, if customers are keeping in step with them or not; not the other way round, as it should be.
The flexibility SYNC'T brings to the table was within Autodesk's grasp in the early 2000's - maybe earlier - but the industry following drivers, behind Inventor, Autodesk chose, gave us what now exists - a markedly inflexible tool.
Autodesk's problem is how to give their users back a level of flexibility they took away and include sufficiently advanced additional functionality?
For Siemens, success, of SYNC'T, relies on acceptance and marketing: for Autodesk SYNC'T will be all about marketing! Real users, "impatient & needy", will have to wait until Autodesk's marketeers and its 'follower' developers understand the CAD market is about users' needs not Autodesk's. Only then will Autodesk be able to move forward as they pull-off the necessary 'about-face'.

[Ricky Jordan]

Roopinder,

If I would have known you were in town, I would have invited you to our SolidWorks Users Group meeting on Tuesday night. Hope you enjoyed your time in Huntsville.

Let me know the next time you come to town.

Best Regards,

Ricky Jordan
http://www.rickyjordan.com

[MattJ]

Dear Autodesk,

How long until we see similar functionality in Inventor? I'm all a-twitter in breathless anticipation.

Yours truly,

Impatient & Needy