North America's Leading Siemens PLM Partner

Designfusion Blog

Ordered vs. Synchronous – Which should I use? – Part 2

John Pearson - Thursday, October 17, 2013
If you read Part 1 of this article, you’ll recall that I discussed the Pros and Cons of ordered and synchronous modeling. I also suggested that you should use both paradigms in an integrated approach to get the best of both methods. In this article I want to take a closer look at why some users claim that they can’t use synchronous modeling. There are some myths that are cropping up about synchronous which are simply not true.  Of these myths, the most prominent one is the following:

I have complete control of my design in ordered, but not in synchronous.”

This is simply not true. First let’s look at the first part of the statement. The designer only has complete control of the sketch if it is fully constrained. Plus that control is per sketch, there is no guarantee that changing that sketch will not negatively impact other sketches in the model. It takes a lot of work to constrain and relate all your sketches to get models to always behave in a set manner. For this reason many users don’t bother to put in the effort. Plus, if your company follows standard PLM practices, once you complete and review the model, it is released. A released model should never be changed anyway. You should create a revision of a released model to be able to update or modify it. If you don’t use released models, your perceived control of the model is only good assuming no one goes into your sketch and starts deleting your constraints.

The second part of this statement is also false. Not only can you control a synchronous model, but you actually have more tools to do so. The main reason users go into the sketch is to change the dimensions. In synchronous modeling, driving dimensions are placed directly on the model, allowing the user easy access with the same dimensional edit control as ordered. Geometric relationships can be maintained by using the Live Rules, without first having to place any geometric constraints, or by locking down 3D geometric relationships. If you compare the 2D geometric sketch relationship to the 3D face relationships, you will note that they are almost identical.


So the reality is that you can have complete control of your models in the synchronous paradigm. In fact you have complete control without having to fully constrain your sketches. Remember, the sketch is merely a launch point for the model; it does not drive the model. For those of you who have struggled to fully constrain sketches, you can appreciate how much time this will save.

This statement brings up another issue with ordered modeling. Many users lock there models down to try and ensure easy edits in the future. The problem here is that you have to try and predict what kind of changes can occur, if any, in the future. So the user invests a lot of time locking down or constraining a model, that may never change, or may change in a completely different way than the user predicted. If the model does change in the predicted manner, the designer still has to remember how it was originally constrained, in order to make predictable edits. The reality is that some parts never get changed, and those that do, are often changed in an unpredicted manner or, by a different designer. Even if it’s the same designer, he/she may not remember how it was originally constrained. Thus you spend more time trying to understand how the model behaves, even before you can attempt any edits.

This doesn’t even take into account the parts that are often grabbed to use as reference parts. It’s been my experience that most designers prefer not to start from scratch unless forced to. They will often look for similar designs from their legacy data, copy and rename the model, and then edit the model to meet the new criteria. This can sometimes prove to be a frustrating experience if the reference model is constrained differently than your new model should be.

This is the beauty of synchronous technology. You do not have to predict the design intent at the time of creation. It enables you to determine the design intent each time you make a change or edit to the model. Let me give you a simple example of this:

Below is a fully constrained sketch that I use in my fundamentals course.


Notice that this has been constrained such that the circles for the holes are centered on the rounded top corners and will move outward symmetrically, if I increase the value of 3.000. Likewise the holes and rounds will move upwards if I increase the value of 2.000. All the walls are locked to either vertical or horizontal positions, and the center half circle’s radius is controlled independently.

This sketch is used to create the base feature of the following model.


Based on my design intent, I have predicted that the model could change in one of the following ways:



I could also change the diameters of the holes and the radii of the rounds or center cutout.

However, what happens if I need to make different changes that were not predicted or I use the model for a reference part to make the following models:

All three changes above would require some editing of the sketch beyound simple dimensional edits. Making the same model in synchronous, I create the following sketch:


Notice that I don’t show any geometric handles. I can use them, if they speed up the creation of the sketch, but I don’t need to pit them in. I generate the model using similar commands that I used in the ordered paradigm.

Editing the model is easily done in one step, using the steering wheel and Live Rules. Not only can I make the predicted changes to the model:



Note: Live Rules automatically maintains the concentric relationships between the holes and the rounds.

But I can just as easily make the unpredicted changes to the model, by turning off the concentric Live Rule.






Plus I could make many more modifications directly to the model. I could lock down the 3D relationships thus restricting my model as I did in the ordered paradigm, but despite protests from ordered users, this isn’t absolutely necessary. If you choose to lock all your geometric relationships, they will appear in the Pathfinder, under a relationship header.

Even if I lock the model down, these locked relationships can be deleted from the Pathfinder, keeping it easy to edit. But keep in mind that you do not have to do this, because Live Rules will maintain those relationships without having to previously define them.

Another big reason for not using synchronous is, as I noted in the Part 1 of this article, there are some limitations to certain features. Some users believe that any limitations justifies not using the synchronous paradigm. Again these users have not been fully trained and do not understand the power of integrated modeling. For example, synchronous modeling does not support dangling bends in sheet metal. This prevents user from creating contoured flanges along a curved edge. In the model below I created this using an integrated approach.



Notice that the model was started in the synchronous paradigm and the contour flange was added in the ordered paradigm. If I edit the synchronous features, the ordered features are automatically updated. For example, if I move the one side of the part, effectively changing the overall width, the ordered contour flange updates with the symmetrical move.



So I still have the benefits of synchronous editing, yet the ordered feature provides me with the feature currently lacking in the synchronous paradigm. In other words, I get the best of both paradigms. Any limitations in synchronous are easily overcome by using the integrated approach.

Finally, and I know you’ve already heard this from me in several posts, make sure you attend training. Synchronous technology requires a good basic understanding before you see the true benefits. It has been described as a mind shift similar to that of transitioning from 2D to 3D. Most resellers offer synchronous training for experienced Solid Edge users. At Designfusion we have a 3 day synchronous course with an optional 4TH day for sheet metal.

Another way of looking at this would be to ask yourself what you would pay for a new CAD system that will significantly improve your efficiency, thus saving you time and money. Now, if you are a current user of Solid Edge, consider that you already own this and the only thing stopping you from reaping all the benefits is 3 or 4 days of training.

If you are interested in seeing how synchronous can benefit your company, contact your local reseller for a demonstration. If you are already a Designfusion customer, or would like to be, contact us directly at sales@designfusion.com or contact your local account manager. Synchronous technology is here to stay and will continue to get better. The sooner you learn how to use it, the sooner your will reap the benefits.







comments powered by Disqus