The one distinguishing feature (in theory) of digital twins is it is supposed to be such a hyper accurate model that it can be used to predict absolutely anything about the system in question. No changing of model setup, it's a "perfect" representation.
The down side is everything explodes exponentially - setup time, mesh count, solve time; and we usually get worse results than more focused simulations because we can't squeeze enough detail in across the board.
It generally starts because some manager hears that we've created 8 different specialized models of something due to different areas of interest, and has the bright idea of "lets just create a single super-accurate model we can use for everything". I've been fighting against them my entire career, although 10 years ago it was "virtual mockups"
The next buzzword in the pipeline seems to be "virtual lab" which I can't figure out either. I've been simulating laboratory tests for over a decade and no one can explain to me why that isn't exactly what we're already doing.
None of this is to say that this team isn't doing great work, but somewhere along the way it got wrapped up in some marketing nonsense.
Edit: Restructured my reply to better address OPs question.
Yes it's fine if people want to create a new buzzword for some special case. But people act like it's a revolutionary idea that will allow them to finally address unsolved problems (and ergo deserve funding for).
"Light fields" is one that always annoyed me. People who are apparently unaware of centuries of knowledge and methods in electromagnetism, developing "new" ways to solve problems crudely. That's great if they can make some cool new imaging system, but is it research deserving of long-term high-risk funding? It's just something that anyone skilled in optics can work out if they thought to build it.
The down side is everything explodes exponentially - setup time, mesh count, solve time; and we usually get worse results than more focused simulations because we can't squeeze enough detail in across the board.
It generally starts because some manager hears that we've created 8 different specialized models of something due to different areas of interest, and has the bright idea of "lets just create a single super-accurate model we can use for everything". I've been fighting against them my entire career, although 10 years ago it was "virtual mockups"
The next buzzword in the pipeline seems to be "virtual lab" which I can't figure out either. I've been simulating laboratory tests for over a decade and no one can explain to me why that isn't exactly what we're already doing.
None of this is to say that this team isn't doing great work, but somewhere along the way it got wrapped up in some marketing nonsense.
Edit: Restructured my reply to better address OPs question.