Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:11:56 -0500 From: "Anders Backman" Subject: FW: Is VR dead? Sender: To: "3-D User Interaction Mailing List" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Message-id: <001401c1b936$3e985df0$c829ef82@BINKY> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit bytorch.hitl.washington.edu id g1JBFXM07634 X-Authentication-warning: torch.hitl.washington.edu: majordom set sender toowner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu using -f X-Priority: 3 (Normal) (anders) Forwarding a reply: Hi Anders, hi all... I believe this odds are more or less induced by a couple of misconceptions inherent to VR in it's current form & acceptance, that is : 1 - Immersion, this particular point is very critical since bound to hw/physical limits (cf: your comments on HMD) but VR also hits the disapointment wall of our sci-fi cultural phantasm (cf: the holodeck, and some funky 'information highways' representations necessary to any cyber-ambiented movies...). 2 - Reality, here we face the auto immune limitation factor of VR (that may only be a word trick, but I'm not so sure...), computer generated experience will never be like what you can live for real... You won't get by any mean an experience fluid enough, my 'bio-port' is actually a bunch of heavy heterogen machinery. And what I can see in here is simply awfull (aesthetically, most of the time based on a dull, rigid simulation of reality). 3 - Input hardware, I'm convinced that none of we has sutch a naïve vision of VR, but since we're speaking of business opportunities (or lack of), mass market is a reference, if you want to 'sell' VR then sell adapted input hw at consumer prices... I'm sure that there's an intermediary step here, between 2d desktop and accurate 3d scientific simulation, that has been neglected.. I'm thinking of a non immersive, non realist, manipulative idiom that we still need to invent/teach/learn. I still see mutch people struggling against computers even in desktop metaphor, so the pedagogic effort should be massive :-) Maybe something more like 'real virtuality' (another word trick) would help bridging the gap. mmmh, what could this mean? Well, I guess I still have to figure out, but : * I left behind the pounding weight of realism already (I'm not saying that simulation is bad - there is plenty of needs for it - but for consumer level applications it's a real barrier) * nobody but heavyweight corporate can afford immersion, so forget about it (untill some improvement) * by now I'm trying to build 3d interface functions at a 'toy' level * I work with artists and designers for I want them to look pretty good * I'm still looking for a candidate for input... Well, I don''nt know if you'll agree but I think VR has forgot some developpement fields behind... And maybe thats why all VR companie are actually stalling... do we need a '3d common sense' to develop at consumer level to make it work again? Lo. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Backman" To: "3-D User Interaction Mailing List" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:58 AM Subject: Is VR dead? > Hi all. > > After working a couple of years in the VR community it seems that things > have changed, a lot. > > Someone said: - The failure of gloves and goggles. > Refering to that using an HMD and goggles (with trackers) was supposed > to change the way > Of life. But it has failed. Due to sloppy hardware, latency (sloppy > hardware?) > Cables, high costs etc... > > I can see some areas where VR is still alive: > > * Visualizations using Powerwall (car industry, research, oil) > Usually in the car industry no trackersystems are used, they just don't > work. > > * Driving simulators www.oryx.se is a good example of that. > > Ok, there are some applications using HMD:s too, but are they really > making a profit? > How many are they? > > > I can see some trends: > > * A lot of VR companies are struggling to survive. (some are already > gone) > They still try to charge a lot of money for products not delivering what > they should. > People blaim interaction methods, bad hardware, bad software. > > * In the latest Medicine meets VR conference a lot of researchers were > using game engines such as Unreal, Quake etc.. > They are for free (but beware of the monster warning. Some research > results show that test subjects are afraid that monsters will jump to > them behind the next turn, just because the "feeling" of the > environment.) > > * Try to find a decent HMD nowdays, its impossible. None is doing any > development in this area. Nothing really new. (VRT will change the way > of life, anyone heard thatone before?) > It seems that company research in the VR-hardware area has stalled? > > * Vrsource website, not much new there compared to gamasutra and all the > other game sites. > > * A lot of research institutes have VR websites dated 00 and older. > > * More and more research seems to directly be aimed at gaming and > animation (more money?) > > So Im looking forward to a discussion here. > (I will probably also publish this onto the Vrsource webforum!) > > I really look forward to the VR2002 conference. > I really don't want VR to be dea