Differences between SolidEdge Synchronous Technology and SpaceClaim

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Charlton on December 15, 2008 at 12:34pm

Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology vs. SpaceClaim

· SE-ST - Feature based tree – SC - no tree or collection

· SE-ST - Live Rules – SC - Concentric Only

· SE - Procedural Features – SC - Pattern Only

· SC - 3D locked driving dimensions

· SC - No constraint solver (2d or 3d)

· SC - Missing massive pieces of functionality for a production CAD system:

o Production Drafting

o Large assemblies

o Production sheet metal

o Pipe framing

o Wiring

o Tubing

Many more



Because our UI’s look similar they will claim Siemens copied them and they are the leaders and innovators.

· Yes our UI’s look similar – They both use the new Microsoft Ribbon based on Office 2007

· Technology – Our geometric reliablilty is the standard in the industry. The Parasolid Kernel is used by a large percentage of CAD customers.– SpaceClaim - ACIS based

· No DCM solver in 3d or 2d, so they can’t lock dimensions or set up equation relationships

· No parameterized control for basic mechanical features like holes.

These comments are based on our knowledge of SpaceClaim as it compares with our Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology. Software is always evolving. They may do things to improve the current offering, but based on what I know I feel Solid Edge is far more powerful.

Adam Charlton
Inside Product Sales - Solid Edge
Siemens PLM Software
adam.charlton@siemens.com

Attachments:

• Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology Fact Sheet.pdf, 3.6 MB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on December 15, 2008 at 11:50pm

Thank you Adam. Most of the things you listed cover the differences between a parametric and feature based CAD and a direct modelling CAD. I use ProEngineer, so I'm not interested in another software to do Production Drafting, Large assemblies, Production sheet metal, Pipe framing, Wiring or Tubing. I'm a structural analyst and I just need something that allows me to modify a STEP or a IGES files when I don't have the same CAD of a customer (only 30% of my customers use ProE, the other are equally distributed between Inventor, SolidWorks, Catia, SolidEdge).

I'm just interested in the differences between direct modeling in SE and SC. Could you explain what do you mean with:

- SE-ST - Live Rules – SC - Concentric Only

· SE - Procedural Features – SC - Pattern Only

· SC - 3D locked driving dimensions

· SC - No constraint solver (2d or 3d)

Thank you
Matteo

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Charlton on December 16, 2008 at 10:41am

My point in listing those items that are part of the Solid Edge package is that it is a complete solution. Solid Edge is comparable in it's capabilities to Pro-E, and many people find it much more user friendly. With the added aspect of Synchronous Technology it is set apart from the rest. Synchronous Technology combines the best in History Based Modellling (demension driven, highly automated, feature based) and Explicit Modelling (Flexible Editing, Scales well on many-featured parts, direct interaction)

To elaborate on the other statements:

SE-ST - Live Rules – SC - Concentric Only : For this one the SC user has to manually tell the system that they want the concentric option turned on. Live rules does the work for the user.

SE - Procedural Features – SC - Pattern Only: SC doesn’t have a hole command; patterns are the only item that is procedural. How would a user create a counter bore hole in SC? How long would it take and how many steps is it to change all aspects of the counter bore hole?

• SC - 3D locked driving dimensions: Solid Edge does this more effectively. The only way to do this with SC is to create a group (i.e. group the face with the dimension)

• SC - No constraint solver (2d or 3d): This is true, they just don’t do this. If a user doesn’t make a line tangent with an arc how would they do it in SC? It is not persistant.

Thanks again for your interest.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on December 16, 2008 at 11:52pm

Thank you for the answer. I think that the last statement is the one I notice more.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Blake Courter on December 17, 2008 at 9:18pm

Solid Edge is, no doubt, a great CAD system. We at SpaceClaim are delighted to see all of the major CAD vendors incorporate direct modeling into their products, and direct modeling is clearly going to play a major role in the future of CAD. CAD customers will be the big winners, because:

• How you create a model will not constrain how you can change it;
• Direct modeling allows customers to edit models regardless of the original CAD system; and
• Customers will be able to pick and choose the right tools for each job, rather than being beholden to monolithic CAD deployments.

It’s fun to watch the CAD vendors finally have something material to compete over. That being said:

• SpaceClaim Corporation is not trying to compete with CAD vendors.
• SpaceClaim is not a replacement for detail-oriented CAD systems.
• Many CAD vendors are our customers, and we would like to keep them.

We at SpaceClaim don’t consider SpaceClaim to be a CAD system in the common use of the word. (Some folks rightly point out that CAD stands for “computer-aided design,” and in that sense SpaceClaim is a CAD system along with Photoshop, Maya, SensAble, and SketchUp. However, if SketchUp can claim that “SketchUp’s not CAD,” so can we.)

We are seeing traction because there are a lot of people who want the benefits of 3D solid modeling without the overhead and expense of a detail-oriented CAD system. That’s why non-traditional CAD customers are buying so much SpaceClaim:

• Conceptual engineers who want to sketch out new ideas from scratch, often in the context of existing designs;
• CAE analysts, who want to find the optimal design by testing many different design scenarios, often by cleaning up and editing existing detailed designs; and
• Industrial designers who are looking for something that’s more robust than surface modelers but not as fussy as CAD systems.

These guys are jumping on SpaceClaim because it’s not CAD. Many of them have tried CAD and decided it’s not for them or they use CAD but want a complementary tool when CAD’s not the best tool for the job. They want the ability to make parts and assemblies without worrying about relationships and structure. They want insanely fast creation tools. They want to be able to edit designs in cross sections, in drawing views, and in any assembly. They want to yank the rounds and fine details off of a model, simulate it in CAE, then unashamedly redesign it to save material while increasing strength. They want to turn a blender into a toaster. They want native translators to all major CAD systems. They want CAD neutrality, so they can interoperate with their CAD coworkers, suppliers and customers. They want to have fun while they innovate. And, once the concept is validated, the CAD guys can use the concept model as a starting point for detailed design with proper best practices, design intent, and documentation.

I would characterize Solid Edge as a CAD system. For that reason, it makes sense that they did some things differently when implementing direct modeling. In particular, their use of a constraint manager might make sense for those with the wherewithal to build and keep track of design intent and other constraints. We wanted to keep things simple, and we didn’t want our customers to have to play chess with a constraint solver to make simple edits. Our Pull and Move tools let users edit parts in a variety of ways without the complexity of constraints. Consider this simple example of four different approaches to reposition a top face:

I assume that Solid Edge ST would let a user make these changes by setting up different constraints. In SpaceClaim, you can do it all using Pull and Move and choosing whether to bring along the adjacent edge. It’s especially convenient to be able to play around with different variations without having to change your constraint setup. In a proper detailed model that captures sophisticated design intent, one could easily argue the opposite.

So how do you make a line tangent with an arc without adding constraints? Just drag it until it snaps:

In SpaceClaim, this works both for sketch curves and for editing solids in cross section.

Now what about patterns, thin walls, mirror, concentricity, and assembly conditions? We also manage those without constraints by adding reversible hints to the model that tell the tools to move extra faces. In some cases, like with sheet metal and shelled parts, we automatically create them. The goal is to avoid emergent behavior where, when you change one thing, other things move in unexpected ways. SpaceClaim offers a clear path to making the edits you want without needing to worry about potential craziness on the other side of your model. This is how we offer an alternative to the bane of feature-based modeling.

One last comment: the nimbleness of local operations described in this discussion will not make or break the worthiness of a direct modeler. It’s fun to compare, but we’ve found after years of direct modeling and experimenting that rapid creation and slice-and-dice abilities are the most important features of a direct modeler. Maybe the little tweaks are more important in a detailed-design system where users don’t need to make ambitious changes, but for our customers doing conceptual engineering, CAE, and product styling, the tweaks are just icing on the cake. Take a look at Poorvesh’s valve design video and my flashlight video for examples.

Matteo, what CAE tools do you use? We see a lot of analysts who love Pro/E adding SpaceClaim to their toolset.

-Blake

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam OHern on February 17, 2009 at 6:05am

Feature based modeling is not anyone's "Bane" if it's used properly. It's a powerful way of working that allows designers like myself to think about design intent, rather than the restrictions of tools. SC is an excellent start, but it needs feature based modeling too.

What Siemens is doing with ST in SE and NX is fantastic: it combines the best of both worlds, giving the designer the flexibility to choose between direct modeling and feature based. Until SC can offer me that--or at least the benefits of dimensional constraints--it's not a viable solution for my process.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on February 17, 2009 at 7:01am

I think that, in a next future, feature based CAD will be a plugin of that explicit CAD that will allow API integration... I consider a feature based CAD as an explicit CAD with some "geometry wizards" and a geometric entities database added :)

What Siemens is doing (attaching an explicit CAD to SE/NX) togheter with other CAD producers (Inventor, SWX, ProE) is just an attempt to introduce DirectModeling (i.e. ST) by the same commercial channel of the feature based CAD.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Blake Courter on February 17, 2009 at 7:52am

Adam,

I'd like to hear your feedback on the new parametric abilities in SpaceClaim 2009. You can download it from myspaceclaim.com now. Are you looking for constraints, or simply the ability to make dimension-driven changes?

-Blake

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Frank D on February 18, 2009 at 8:18am

Adam
I have to disagree with the statement that "giving the designer the flexibility to choose between direct modeling and feature based" is so great. (seriously, not to point fingers) but Trispectives/Ironcad have had this since 1995, which only proves that this is not so great; if the feature-based choice, AND the direct-modeling capabilities/functions/UI/overall impressions are individually lackluster, taken on their own (compared to others).

It is like when you start a feature-based design, and you do a whole set of work on an assembly, thinking about how it will work, then experimenting (as much as you are able), then making a prototype (maybe), then you look at the kinds of changes that you have to make, really, and many users decide to start their model from scratch, instead of using all the great benefits of the feature-based system to allow them to save their time. It is too hard, they get caught up in regeneration failures, it takes too much time, they don't want anyone else to see the shortcuts that they took to get the model to work, etc etc. Anyway, my assertion is that generally these great feature-based models get made again, from scratch. Moreover, my experience with many companies leads me to believe that people really pushing these tools, actually build that rebuild-from-scratch into their processes. {before I get a ton of replies to this particular statement -- not "Power Users" -- but let's face it, they are a minority}

So what is my point? That I believe that parameterizing everything is useful (and wonderful):
1) at certain points in the process
2) for certain kinds of parts (see: Family Tables)
3) when used by very experienced designers/engineers/operators
4) most companies that buy these tools do not realize just how much experience/skill is needed to get the touted benefits
AND that if we are going to get to an ideal software solution where we combine direct and features, it is not going to be "by giving the user the choice of one or the other."
AND that Blake is right -- that the individual behaviors are not nearly as important as the ease of getting an alternative, and the slice-and-dice capabilities (apologies for paraphrasing) so the actually-needed direct capabilities that we are talking about go WAY farther than just pick-on-a-face-with-a-Push/Pull-tool (see Fusion)

Just as users have no idea how to parameterize models when they first start using a parametric system, they have only their best guesses of how (and how often) designs will change (especially in complex assemblies of components interacting in 3D) -- see my previous statement requiring experience in the ideal user, so he/she can know what pitfalls to avoid.

I don't think people intrinsically know whether to use one or the other, they will just want them when they want them... sometimes pulling on faces, sometimes changing a dimension and getting an expected result, sometimes making a pattern and keeping it around, sometimes making similar features of interest and detecting that it is a pattern (etc etc) -- all of these choices based on how the model is supposed to change, at the time of the change.

Who knows what the other companies are going to do? All I know is that doing a fair job on feature-based modeling is relatively easy, doing a crappy job (in a hurry) on a direct modeling system is (apparently) also pretty easy -- but that getting it (meaning what does direct modeling really entail) and moreover, getting it right to mix the two ... well, that is the goal isn't it?

Fortunately for us, we are not bound by our business model to staple/duct tape this cool functionality on top of our existing feature-based, encrypted, closed modeling engine and proprietary data model (not-to-mention a PDM system that must also be pushed down the throats of people who don't need it)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on February 17, 2009 at 6:55am

I use ProM and NEiFusion.

I'd like so much to have SpaceClaim as a CAD interface instead of SWX for NEiFusion... If I had a better knowledge of VB/C# I'll try do to somtehing using SC API's :)

▶ Reply to This