Talk:Digital twin

Source check
J bh Talk  12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help in fixing the article
This article is beyond fixing, how has it not been deleted yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:73E2:5000:45DF:BD0E:B0C8:FDE1 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is overly confusing, and really not accurate.

A digital twin is, at its essence, a virtual representation of a particular physical thing.

While it is desirable that digital twins be high fidelity, it's not required that they model all characteristics of a thing. Nor is it required that they be dynamic, or that they include real-time telemetry.

Jet engines and locomotives can have digital twins... but so can nuts and bolts. (For example, Jesus Nut might easily have a digital twin.)

The article includes too many citations to vendor promotional material... particularly youtube videos. Not a good thing.

Before I start unilaterally hacking this article up, I'd like to know if there are any interested wikipedians who'd like to work with me on making it better. Cinteotl (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a regular contributor to the Wiki and probably qualified for only minimal comments on other people's garbage. However I agree completely with the Cinteotl comments. One of the main reasons that this article is such a mess is that it was cooked up by commercial entities to re-frame the concept of modeling. There is nothing said here that cannot be found in the historic modeling literature other than a marketing ploy. There is probably no good reason to edit this article beyond a reference to what the term appears to mean and a reference to modeling and simulation articles. Thus, please excuse the non-volunteering to edit. Granted modeling and simulation has many, many opportunities for continued development, however I doubt that a catch phrase is an opportunity. 192.107.155.5 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Alexx

I agree - this reads like a marketturd... another ploy by commercial entities to sound byte something that was useful in some narrow-medium scope in the past. I dealt with this BS back in the 1990's when I did this http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html - something that had utility, and was eventually seen as a marketing goldmine. The article should be prefaced with a statement that it may contain gibberish ... Wamnet (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Overall, I agree with all of the above. However, to me, it seems that the main difference between "digital twin" and just "virtual representation" as would be used in most models is that "digital twin" is used for virtual replicas that are updated to match the physical entity in real-time. The article also contains "a digital twin is a real time digital replica of a physical device" by Bacchiega (2017). Therefore, despite feeling like corporate marketing, I don't think it's just that. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A Digital Twin does not need to be in real-time. Near-real time is fine (you think NASA's satellite Twins are updated in real time when they disappear over the horizon. No). And I don't know who keeps screwing with the definition of "digital thread" but the Digital Thread is NOT the connection between the Digital and Physical Twin. That's just a "connection". The Digital Thread is the traceable history of the virtual asset along the product's lifecycle. I write quite a lot about Digital Twins...it's my job. So while there is a lot of marketing nonsense in this article which confuses the basic definitions, as a predicted 35 billion dollar industry (by 2025), I would say that is slightly more than just hype. The definition of a Digital Twin is very clear at this point. I'm not sure we really need half a dozen definitions from guys back in 2013 tbh. PhillipKeane (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone find it weird that the word "3D" is only mentioned 3 times in this article, and not even mentioned in the article lede? PhillipKeane (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I recently read through the article and did some copyediting, mostly for capitalization per MOS:CAPS, and I noticed some promotional (WP:PROMO) passages as mentioned above but didn't take time to do any expurgating (see, e.g., the Primary source inline tags that I added). I found this article via Modular design, where I rewrote a poorly-written section that refers to digital twins. Anyone who does any significant editing of this article should take a look at the section on digital twins in Modular design and make sure that it is legit or else delete the section if there is a good reason. Biogeographist (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst explanation of digital twin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalextreme (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Working on improving this for the next few weeks as this article is embarrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalextreme (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comment that article needs improvement. The person stating that Digital Twin is just another model is simply wrong. Why not include reference IEEE reference: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9103025 and the ISO/DIS 23247-1 Automation systems and integration — Digital Twin framework for manufacturing — Part 1: Overview and general principles: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:23247:-1:dis:ed-1:v1:en  However Digital Twins can be used outside of manufacturing. DeniseF 16:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The concept is now also being applied to people, e.g. healthcare and marketing: https://research.aimultiple.com/digital-twin-applications/ J12t (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This article reads like advertising copy promoting the concept of digital twins to non-technical people. It uses a lot of fancy words but says almost nothing. Gawk at the meaninglessness of this sentence: "Digital technologies have certain characteristics that distinguish them from other technologies. These characteristics, in turn, have certain consequences." A good path towards improvement would be to describe one particular use case. The "Examples" section is still general and vague. Picamas (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment. There are now a number of real world examples available.  The addition of DLT technologies is making this space more accessible to many industries.  I will try to help add some copy to the article. J2ppy (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Another incomprehensible sentence: "Since information is granular, the digital twin representation is determined by the value based use cases it is created to implement."Per Mildner (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is jargon-laden garbage. Is there not anyone who can rewrite it in English? I made a small dent in it but it reads like advertising copy produced by hacks. I recommend deletion if it isn't raised to something beginning to resemble Wikipedia standards. Zaslav (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Rather than deletion, can it be a redirect to something that is less like a trade name? Zaslav (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A digital twin is far larger concept than PLM
I do not agree to restrain Digital Twin to product engineering Glbacchiega (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)