Watch the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform in action!

If you’ve seen our recent announcement about 3DEXPERIENCE, you might be wondering how the four quadrants of the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform come into play. So better than any amount of words, the two videos below illustrate the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform in action with concrete examples: IceDream project (see our post series about IceDream), and the 4N luxury watch. Now just have a look for yourself! 🙂




4N Luxury Watch 3DEXPERIENCE


Stay tuned as more examples of 3DEXPERIENCE Platform in action will be coming in soon! In the meantime, let us know which industry or concrete example you would like to see the 3DEXPERIENCE applied to next 🙂


  • Following up from Twitter, I am still unclear as to how this “new” process changes the way many designers and manufacturers create, design and develop new products.

    The difficulty, I think (and as do many others) is that there is no real, tangible data on how all this “stuff” improves things.

    I am currently a SolidWorks user. I have customers who use CATIA. Nobody I know (SolidWorks user/CATIA user) understands any of this. We cannot understand how all this changes – or more particularly, improves – our processes.

    As a designer I start on paper, and digital sketching straight away, and tend to directly design in SolidWorks, Modo or any of the apps we use. We do “typical” product design for SMEs where budgets can be very tight.

    When we “involve” consumers we present options to them using physical prototypes or high quality visuals – sometimes in realtime, sometimes as stills. Showing them a virtual gallery application for a small product is pointless. You either show photorealistic quality or you show sketches or physical mock ups – not some 1990s standard video game (which is what is shown on the watch video).

    When we do simulation, it has to be done in context of cost vs benefit. As any simulation expert will tell you, some seemingly simple scenarios (such as, say, sitting in a plastic chair on a polished floor) are not simple to set up as a simulation, and the user requires a high end non linear analysis solution to undertake this kind of study.

    The bottom line is this. While as a designer I would love to be able to justify spending £30-40K per seat on a product development system that allows all this, the harsh reality is that SME project budgets do not allow this.

    FEA is the case in point. Most projects – especially small products – it is cheaper to design using experience and then progress straight to a development tool, make physical samples in production materials and test them, then make changes to the tool.

    On the presentation side, there are already well established low cost tools for creating virtual mockups. But all these compete against low cost physical prototypes – which we can buy in at commodity prices now.

    As I said on Twitter, this is not a criticism of this 3D Experience platform – more a failure in communication as to how it benefits the SME user.

  • Aurelien

    Hi Kevin,

    Thanks for jumping in. As with any new paradigm introduction, it takes some time to come up with concrete examples and customer testimonies illustrating the concept. As I said in my post, more will come over time.
    I can understand very well that budgets of SMEs are tight, even more nowadays, thus making the product design process quite straightforward (“typical” product design process as you said, “from design using experience and then progress straight to a development tool”).

    I’m not sure how well this applies to your products, but in some cases you may want not just to rely on your experience but also get an idea of what your customers are expecting. If your products exactly fit your customer desires that’s fine, but sometimes a designer or a company may want to get a grasp of their customer’s wishes at a given time. Because this might give you a chance to be closer to your customer’s needs and get more revenue, or discover why your products won’t sell as well as they used to do. You might say that you just have to “ask” your customers if they are close to you and their number is manageable, but if your customers are numerous and scattered around the globe, that might be more challenging. Meanwhile, an SME can’t probably afford expensive market research studies. This is when tools like SwYm, Exalead or Netvibes can become handy to probe what your consumers are looking for, or even understand why they’re more interested in your competitor’s products. (Talking about Netvibes, I will soon post an interview of Netvibes CEO Freddy Mini who explains how Netvibes can improve the product design process, so stay tuned once again :)). – if you look here, these examples relate to the north and east quadrant of the 3D Experience (“Social Innovation Platform” and “Search Platform”).

    Now let’s have a look at the “other end” of the process, when you’re about to showcase the products you’ve designed to your customers. You mention high quality renderings and virtual mockups. This is fine if your customers want to get a visual representation of the product, but what about the behavior of the product? Consumers may not only want to see the product before it’s built, but may want to experience it (again, I’m not sure if this applies to your products but according to your website you seem to reach a pretty large breadth of industries). For instance, tools such 3DVIA can help the consumer experience the physical properties of the product; or that could be as well the behavior of the embedded software of the product, if it comes with embedded electronics. –these examples relate to the south quadrant of the 3D Experience (“Content and Simulation Platform”).

    Hope this helps to make things a little bit clearer, and thanks again for opening up the conversation.

  • Thanks for the feedback. I think there are several issues with this.

    The first would be customer involvement. Designing business to business products, custom machinery, products that must interact with existing products in a customer range requires detailed customer input during the design process. I think every designer and engineer knows this.

    But for general consumer product design taking a new concept to market – even for “simple” products defined mainly by shape, getting consumer input is not actually that valuable (in my opinion) except when the product has distinct requirements such as medical devices or products aimed at a very specific group of consumers.

    The problem with generic consumer input is people generally only react to what they see, touch and sense. Unless the digital “experience” matches the consumer expectation it affects the reaction to the product. This is an age of consumers who go to watch 3D animated films and play on hyper realistic video games. Unless the product development interaction process – the digital one – matches this, it is rejected.

    Having tried SwYm (and as shown on the videos) that experience falls far far short of acceptable consumer interaction experiences.

    Over the years we have , and my customers have, tried numerous ways of predicting what people want. We have come to the conclusion that we need to do what WE think works, get it to market quickly and sell it. In my experience only the physical end product itself is what most people accept when it comes to making judgements on products.

    Think about buying a car. You can get 3D environments from 3D CAD data, rendered in realtime, with touch sensitive gloves. You can simulate driving it and trying all the switches out. But how many car makers fit showrooms out with these set ups? None.

    The reason is that the final judgement on whether or not a product is good or bad requires having the product made. You need to sit in the car, feel the touch of the steering wheel on your hands, the smell of the leather, the sound of the stereo system, the noise of the engine, the handling etc.

    How many truly great, innovative products were developed entirely digitally, using consumer input?

    As I said before, this is not a criticism of the aims of this programme. I just do not happen to think that is where most companies (as it will be companies who buy this) need the input. There are some amazing tools in DS products and the only true way that you will see genuine new innovation in processes is to open up the toolset to the mass market rather than restrict it to those multi national corporations who can afford them.

    As a SolidWorks user, we have a great system already in place for product development. I am hoping that the next generation product will continue that and take us to the next level.

  • Sunglasses With Prescription Lens