Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:06:08 -0500 From: "Kevin M. Curry" Subject: Re: FW: Is VR dead? Sender: To: "Anders Backman" , , Cc: "3-D User Interaction Mailing List" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Reply-to: Message-id: <3C790160.BE23AD55@home.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_rnf2jST7NrFysSXGiNRfJg)" Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Accept-Language: en X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 References: <001401c1b936$3e985df0$c829ef82@BINKY> X-Authentication-warning: torch.hitl.washington.edu: majordom set sender toowner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu using -f X-Priority: 3 (Normal) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_rnf2jST7NrFysSXGiNRfJg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT VR is not dead. We are all probably still ahead of the market, but not for long I say. There are three main factors that I think set the stage for a 3D revolution to come: 1. Affordability - when I started working in CAVEs (1997) it cost 1.2 million to build one of those suckers. I don't know what it costs now, but I know you can spend less and get more. But even more to the point, for less than $2000/3000 USD, you can get really high quality graphics on a really fast desktop computer. (foreshadowing here to the point Lo made about neglect btwn 2D & 3D...) Even better, for $400 you can buy and Xbox that combines high-quality, high-speed graphics with an internet connection. Who says all the apps have to be games? 2. Acceptability - have you seen the commercial for the Game Cube?! It's purely a marketers conception, but the commercial is a kid sitting inside a CAVE-looking thing w/ the games projected on all surfaces. The lastest Technology Review (MIT) reminds us that the game console generation is driving expectations in other areas of computing - 3D graphics being at the forefront of that. 3. Broadband Connectivity - actually, combine this one with 1 and 2 - cable and DSL run about $40-50/mo USD. You can't assume that everyone is connected (only 6% of the world population, actually), but you can probably assume that anyone even remotely thinking about VR is connected. It might interest you to know that there is a guy working for IDA (Inst. for Defense Analyses) who's mission is to research the feasibility of using an XBox to support non-game tele-VR apps. I don't know how much success he'll have, but surely his research will help answer questions. Now, back to that point about the 2D to 3D leap. My experience is that the VR community automatically assumes that immersion is the only way to go. Most are focused on how to bring the user into a 3D world. The team I work with, however, is focused on how to bring 3D to the user (on his/her traditional desktop). And notice I left out the word "world." If you keep up with all the messages on this list, you've already seen me rant about turning a desktop into a 3D world. The point I stress is that people are not ready to be immersed, but they do have definite needs for 3D. Example: I need a 3D model of an engine that I can manipulate with my mouse and keyboard on my desktop. I need it run over the net so I can share it and access it from anywhere. I need it to be connected to backend databases because I don't want to give up all the other utility built into tradtional computing platforms/environments. I don't want to have to always jump back and forth between my regular computer and some other awkard hardware setup. The engine does not need to be inside a virtual world! One thing that I am very glad my thesis committee* stressed was the need to support hetergenous systems. Sure, we all want to do all that neato high-end immersive stuff. But we have to also a pragmatic. We can't just leave the desktop behind. And when the world finally is ready for "holodecks," they better still be connectable to other computing platforms (including PDAs)! Finally, as Anders alluded to, I see promise in the IWall "movement" - lecture halls of the future... * (Drs. Mary Beth Rosson, Ron Kriz, and Jack Carroll) Still hoping to make it to VR2002... - Kevin Anders Backman wrote: > (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 dead. So prove me wrong. > > > > Is VR dead? > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Anders Backman Email: andersb@cs.umu.se > > HPC2N/VRlab Phone: +46 (0)90-786 9936 > > Umea university Cellular: +46 (0)70-392 64 67 > > S-901 87 UMEA SWEDEN Fax: +46 90-786 6126 > > http://www.cs.umu.se/~andersb > > --Boundary_(ID_rnf2jST7NrFysSXGiNRfJg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT VR is not dead.  We are all probably still ahead of the market, but not for long I say.  There are three main factors that I think set the stage for a 3D revolution to come:
  1. Affordability - when I started working in CAVEs (1997) it cost 1.2 million to build one of those suckers.  I don't know what it costs now, but I know you can spend less and get more.  But even more to the point, for less than $2000/3000 USD, you can get really high quality graphics on a really fast desktop computer.  (foreshadowing here to the point Lo made about neglect btwn 2D & 3D...)  Even better, for $400 you can buy and Xbox that combines high-quality, high-speed graphics with an internet connection.  Who says all the apps have to be games?
  2. Acceptability - have you seen the commercial for the Game Cube?!  It's purely a marketers conception, but the commercial is a kid sitting inside a CAVE-looking thing w/ the games projected on all surfaces.  The lastest Technology Review (MIT) reminds us that the game console generation is driving expectations in other areas of computing - 3D graphics being at the forefront of that.
  3. Broadband Connectivity - actually, combine this one with 1 and 2 - cable and DSL run about $40-50/mo USD.  You can't assume that everyone is connected (only 6% of the world population, actually), but you can probably assume that anyone even remotely thinking about VR is connected.  It might interest you to know that there is a guy working for IDA (Inst. for Defense Analyses) who's mission is to research the feasibility of using an XBox to support non-game tele-VR apps.  I don't know how much success he'll have, but surely his research will help answer questions.
Now, back to that point about the 2D to 3D leap.  My experience is that the VR community automatically assumes that immersion is the only way to go.  Most are focused on how to bring the user into a 3D world.  The team I work with, however, is focused on how to bring 3D to the user (on his/her traditional desktop).  And notice I left out the word "world."  If you keep up with all the messages on this list, you've already seen me rant about turning a desktop into a 3D world.  The point I stress is that people are not ready to be immersed, but they do have definite needs for 3D.

Example:  I need a 3D model of an engine that I can manipulate with my mouse and keyboard on my desktop.  I need it run over the net so I can share it and access it from anywhere.  I need it to be connected to backend databases because I don't want to give up all the other utility built into tradtional computing platforms/environments.  I don't want to have to always jump back and forth between my regular computer and some other awkard hardware setup.  The engine does not need to be inside a virtual world!

One thing that I am very glad my thesis committee* stressed was the need to support hetergenous systems.  Sure, we all want to do all that neato high-end immersive stuff.  But we have to also a pragmatic.  We can't just leave the desktop behind.  And when the world finally is ready for "holodecks," they better still be connectable to other computing platforms (including PDAs)!

Finally, as Anders alluded to, I see promise in the IWall "movement" - lecture halls of the future...

* (Drs. Mary Beth Rosson, Ron Kriz, and Jack Carroll)

Still hoping to make it to VR2002...
- Kevin

Anders Backman wrote:

(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" <andersb@cs.umu.se>
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 dead. So prove me wrong.
>
> Is VR dead?
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>  Anders Backman               Email:    andersb@cs.umu.se
>  HPC2N/VRlab                  Phone:    +46 (0)90-786 9936
>  Umea university              Cellular: +46 (0)70-392 64 67
>  S-901 87 UMEA SWEDEN         Fax:      +46 90-786 6126
>                               http://www.cs.umu.se/~andersb
>

--Boundary_(ID_rnf2jST7NrFysSXGiNRfJg)--