Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:56:06 -0500 From: "Chris Rhoton" Subject: RE: Is VR dead? In-reply-to: Sender: To: <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Reply-to: Message-id: <011501c1b97f$7cabbee0$1c07a8c0@Laptop> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Authentication-warning: torch.hitl.washington.edu: majordom set sender toowner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu using -f X-Priority: 3 (Normal) I think what we're seeing in VR is much the same as others have seen in the field of Artificial Intelligence. AI was the golden boy of government funding and "industry" (as it was) buzz during its early years. Everyone saw the potential of the field and wanted to see the fruits of their investments, but as the problems proved harder than had first been anticipated, public (and private) interest waned. However, a lot of good things came of the early failures. We discovered what we can and (possibly) cannot do, and we learned many valuable lessons through all the research that was being done during these early stages. The downside was that it forced the AI researchers to constantly be looking for the next big thing; the next paradigm that was going to solve the problems that others were encountering and help the researchers to gain the funding and the contracts everyone else was losing. Now that the buzz has died down, AI research is looking at how it can integrate with existing systems to make them more efficient or better at what they do. Instead of trying to build a thinking machine, research is looking at how AI concepts can be applied to other fields. Chad Wingrave recently (correct me if I'm wrong, Chad) did some work that applied AI algorithms and methodologies to HCI issues in virtual environments. Others are doing much the same (even Microsoft if rumors about their R&D for the next Windows are to be believed). I think VR research is going to go in much the same direction. Early public buzz about the field had people envisioning "Matrixesque" dreamscapes where everyone would escape the bitter truth of the real world. The mind boggled at the possibilities. What we are seeing now is movement toward using VR technology and research to solve existing (and often RELATIVELY smaller problems). Things are becoming much more specific, and I believe that much of the coming research will bleed over into other fields. Work in VR will begin (and obviously already has to a decent extent) to translate over in to the budding AR and wearable computing realm. Many of the existing text input problems in VR exist in AR. I'm sure there are other examples, some that we haven't even begun to think of (just as early efforts in AI probably didn't begin by considering the affects their work might have on the field of HCI), and we will see those examples born out of the research that is going on today (however quiet it may be). I definitely agree with Chad that now is the time that some great work can be done in VR. We have begun to distance ourselves from the pressures of delivering the "next big thing" in order to receive funding, and can now begin to settle down and do things methodically and pull everything together. C -----Original Message----- From: owner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu [mailto:owner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Chad Wingrave Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:09 PM To: 3-D User Interaction Mailing List Subject: Re: Is VR dead? First response, no but how else do you expect someone to answer on this list? Let us consider... I think it would be irresponsible to consider a field dead because much of the hype and glitz has moved on to other fields. Personally, I think this a better forum for science now that we are not rushed to produce the next obvious piece of work. Now, we are able to survey the literature, identify the weaknesses and apply serious thought and technique to serious issues. Too long now has the field been hurried by the "coolness" factor. If you look at the current work in VR it is no longer just in building systems; it is collaboration with others and their research methods such as architecture, psychology, medicine, engineering, visualization, etc. This takes first time to understand the philosophy of a new area and time to design acceptable experiments for the new areas. Those works do not always reappear in the VR community which adds to the illusion that VR is dying. Additionally, we are hampered by the inability to reproduce each others experiments, a cornerstone of the older sciences. This may be due to a lack of good openly available tools or the lack of time to test and refute each other's findings. To conclude, I have a strong connection to academia and am honestly rather relieved in the turn of events, whatever they may be, that have cooled the field of VR. This period of time is a breather where we can focus and spend time to do things correctly. We have a knowledge base of ideas and previous research well documented in the literature and, due to the newness of the field, almost all of it is easily accessible via the web. Big displays and costly projections and environments make waves but useful APIs, well designed experiments and flashes of insight are what is pulling VR together into a solid and respected field. -Chad (cwingrav@cc.gatech.edu) http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~cwingrav On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Anders Backman wrote: > 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 dead. So prove me wrong. > > Is VR dead? > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Anders Backman Email: andersb@cs.umu.se > HPC2N/VRlab