Siemens PLM and LEDAS are business rivals in the 2D and 3D constraints technology space. Siemens PLM has D-Cubed 2D and 3D DCM and LEDAS has LGS 2D and LGS 3D. As component vendors they keep running into each other all the time, trying to woo the same customers. Till recently, LEDAS was purely a component vendor and didn’t have end user products of their own like Siemens PLM. That has changed. For some time LEDAS has been using its core constraint domain knowledge to create a direct modeling technology. They have been calling it Variational Direct Modeling. Over a year I wrote an article on this blog titled “Variational Direct Modeling” on the subject. They have wrapped their technology into two products implemented as plug-ins for SketchUp and Rhino (see drivingdimensions.com). On the other hand, Siemens has been using its constraints know how to further Synchronous Technology. So this is a little bit of history that will help you understand the rest of this post.
isicad is publication that covers the Russian CAD/PLM space. Although Siemens PLM advertises on isicad, it recently refused to give the editors a review license of Solid Edge ST3. And I can understand why. Because isicad is run by LEDAS.
Today one of the many geniuses at LEDAS, Dr. Dmitry Ushakov wrote a very interesting paper on isicad titled “Synchronous Technology: The Third Attempt“. Interesting because, since Siemens PLM didn’t give him access to the software, he made use of my 11 part “Synchronous Technology in Solid Edge ST3” series to draw his conclusions. If you are interested in knowing more about the innards of direct modeling technology, I suggest you read it.
However, I must warn you. It can get a bit technical. In fact, knowing Dmitry I think he has actually dumbed it down. You see, the man is a mathematical fountain. He can sit and talk simultaneous equations and high level derivatives to you all night long and continue the next morning. I spent a great deal of time with him during my recent visit to Russia. Even vodka didn’t stop the man. If not the whole paper, I suggest that you at least read the conclusion. Here is a part of it:
“Synchronous technology is our future but why it has to come in the same package with an obsolete apparatus of history-based parametric modeling? These two approaches can hardly be combined due to significant conceptual differences, and as result a composed solution is controversial and unnatural for the users.”
You can read the entire paper here.