1. Since we have several customers in Aerospace who adhere to ITAR regulations, all our software is hosted on-prem so that we have no connection to the data they're using. The data in the DB can always also be taken out if a system switch is desired. Agree about the large assortment of issues that come up when integrating these kinds of systems. It would be naive of us to try to address all these all at once. We tried to make it easy to integrate our systems so that we can run pilots that start small (1 test stand, 1 bench, etc.) to demonstrate initial & immediate value and then expand from there. We want our product to grow with our users - incorporating support for new protocols as they need that become broadly applicable.
2. We see a lot of value in providing essentially a universal adapter to these protocols and hardware interfaces. Decoupling the data communication/device infrastructure from the control and acquisition workflows is big for us and this seems essential to that. A big endeavor on its own, but our existing integrations have been really helpful to our users and as it matures, we intend to continue expanding these integrations!
Hopefully 1 & 2 address your first question!
3. Addressing the second question: We've mostly been focusing on the test & operations use cases (e.g. running real-time control and data acquisition for engine tests). We see a lot of ways we can eventually service industrial controls/automation space - similar to Ignition. However, we are also aware of many reasons people in this space will want to stick to tried and true tools with a larger community and ecosystem.
We're still figuring out how we fit into that space + communicate our ability to provide the breadth of functionality and support them. Posts like this and the users who already see the value and are willing to try something more novel and developmental like us have been huge in progressing towards this.
Some questions I have!
1. What parts of the networking have been most challenging work you wish could have already been done for you?
2. For interfacing with protocols - similar question as above but also which ones were pretty nice to work with and what about them made it so? Closely related which direct integration would you immediately want if you were considering something like Synnax?
3. Related to the customer not knowing the mapping of tags to data - are there similar issues that you've experienced that make it hard to use these systems?
Ended up being a long message but I appreciate your insights on any of what I just said!
2. We see a lot of value in providing essentially a universal adapter to these protocols and hardware interfaces. Decoupling the data communication/device infrastructure from the control and acquisition workflows is big for us and this seems essential to that. A big endeavor on its own, but our existing integrations have been really helpful to our users and as it matures, we intend to continue expanding these integrations!
Hopefully 1 & 2 address your first question!
3. Addressing the second question: We've mostly been focusing on the test & operations use cases (e.g. running real-time control and data acquisition for engine tests). We see a lot of ways we can eventually service industrial controls/automation space - similar to Ignition. However, we are also aware of many reasons people in this space will want to stick to tried and true tools with a larger community and ecosystem.
We're still figuring out how we fit into that space + communicate our ability to provide the breadth of functionality and support them. Posts like this and the users who already see the value and are willing to try something more novel and developmental like us have been huge in progressing towards this.
Some questions I have!
Ended up being a long message but I appreciate your insights on any of what I just said!