In evaluating solutions, customers always compare features and functionality, particularly as often there are multiple viable options.  When choosing between leading products, the choice is typically more about lining up strengths of the vendors versus a customer specific need rather than a particular shortcoming.

In the world of discrete event simulation, there are multiple competitive 3D and 2D solutions.  Fundamentally, both 3D and 2D simulation tools are powerful; 2D is faster and more efficient for analytical work, while 3D adds realism and stakeholder engagement but at the cost of complexity and resources.  This is why Minitab invested in Simul8 to enable our customers to make better, faster and easier decisions – with lest cost and complexity.

Ready to See a Demo of Simulation?

Benefits of 2D Simulation

As mentioned, 2D simulation is extremely effective for system analysis.  By using 2D graphics – and not requiring spatial calculations – building simulation models is much faster and easier.  Simul8 has been praised for enabling users to make decisions “in minutes, not months,” thanks to its drag and drop interface and the ability build simulations without coding. 

2D simulation also requires significantly less computing power, leading to faster processing and simulation execution. 

In summary, build your simulation, get results and get improving faster with 2D simulation.

Benefits of 3D Simulation

The benefit of 3D simulation is simple: it provides a more visually accurate representation of a system.  This only matters if one is using simulation to design a project impacted by space, making spatial relationships – and therefore 3D – important. 

Weighing the Value of 3D Versus 2D

Fundamentally, discrete event simulation is a powerful capability that should be utilized more by most organizations, regardless of whether or not they’re using 2D or 3D.  For most instances, 2D simulations will be easier to create, faster to deliver, more cost effective to run and will translate quicker into improvement activities or a design plan.  For specific cases that require spatial consideration, 3D is a better option.  Regardless, both provide visuals that can be communicated to stakeholders and sooner (2D) or later (3D) provide strong results.