# Which AR training simulator platforms have the most intuitive scenario design that non-technical L&D staff can build and update independently?

Hey G2 community, which AR training simulator platforms have the most intuitive scenario design that non-technical L&D staff can build and update independently? This matters a lot in practice, since a tool that requires a developer every time a scenario needs updating tends to quietly stop getting updated at all.

Reflekt One reviewers specifically highlight that users without programming skills can build AR applications by dragging and dropping objects and text, which is about as direct an answer to non-technical usability as this category gets.
BUNDLAR reviewers describe rapidly creating and editing AR experiences without writing code, with one reviewer noting it was easy to implement even without prior AR experience. Does that ease of use hold up once you're updating an existing scenario rather than building from scratch though, or is the real test in the maintenance rather than the initial build?
SynergyXR reviewers describe going from zero prior XR experience to building a complete showroom environment within weeks using its sandbox, though a separate reviewer described the overall workflow as a little bulky and confusing to navigate at first glance.

For L&D staff who've actually built or updated a scenario themselves without pulling in a developer: how much of the learning curve was the software itself versus just getting comfortable thinking in 3D space for the first time?

##### Post Metadata - Posted at: 2 months ago - Net upvotes: 1 ## Comments ### Comment 1 The bigger learning curve would probably be thinking in 3D rather than using the software itself. Reflekt One sounds strongest if non-technical L&D teams need to own updates, because drag-and-drop editing removes the developer dependency that usually slows maintenance. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 14 days ago - Author title: Marketer ### Comment 2 The maintenance angle changes how I’d test this. Instead of asking L&D to build a polished scenario from scratch, give them an existing one and change a procedure, asset, or decision path. If that edit still requires the original creator or technical help, the no-code authoring advantage probably doesn’t hold up very well over time. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 14 days ago - Author title: Writer ### Comment 3 My read is that it's mostly the 3D part, and it shows up as a content problem rather than a tool problem. L&D staff are used to writing a step and moving on, whereas a scenario needs someone to decide where the learner is standing and what they can see at each point. Building one short scenario end to end during a trial tells you more about that than any feature comparison. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 15 days ago - Author title: Tech Consultant ### Comment 4 The maintenance point buried in your BUNDLAR note is the one that actually matters, more than the initial build. Drag-and-drop authoring gets a first scenario built, but the tools that keep getting updated are the ones where editing an existing scenario is as painless as making it, since that's the step that decides whether content goes stale. To your closing question, a good chunk of the learning curve is usually spatial reasoning rather than the software: authoring in 3D is a new mental model for most L&D staff, so a tool can be intuitive and still feel hard for the first few builds. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: about 2 months ago - Author title: Marketing ## Related discussions - [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 6 - [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 0 - [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 4