From jpierce@cs.cmu.edu Thu May 7 15:13:08 1998 Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA22362 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 15:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (hQGhF84JdO90n9P87SGTiuC2gqKjuUuK@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA27068 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 15:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu (UX2.SP.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.198.102]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12901 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805071912.MAA12901@wheaten.hitl.washington.edu> Received: from HITCHCOCK.PC.CS.CMU.EDU by ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu id aa22618; 7 May 98 15:12 EDT X-Sender: jpierce@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 15:10:28 -0400 To: 3D UI List <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> From: Jeff Pierce Subject: Re: HMDs, CAVEs, COVEs, monitors, oh my! In-Reply-To: <199805071633.MAA14765@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> References: <199805070512.WAA04937@wheaten.hitl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO At 12:33 PM 5/7/98 -0400, Doug Bowman wrote: > >On the other hand (just to be difficult), the mini-CAVE solution >(I'm not sure what the O in COVE stands for) seems to be nothing >more than a set of monitors arranged spatially. If the user is >sitting down, as you suggest, then some of the cool inherent >advantages of VEs with head tracking are lost - to be specific, >the user does not feel surrounded by the space, and immersed within >it, and cannot use his proprioceptive and other body senses as well. Actually, if you give mini-CAVE users a 3D input device (such as a wand or bat) then you can leverage proprioception just as much as you can with an HMD. In addition, by using a mini-CAVE then you win back some haptic feedback, not only because of the flat display surfaces but also because you've got something to anchor a Phantom or other device to. Not to mention the benefits in preventing fatique. >For example, in an application requiring a high degree of spatial >awareness (such as design), it's been shown that the user understands >the 3D space better when he can actually turn his head/body. If >the user has to rotate his view virtually (with a mouse, spaceball, >etc.) the space will be less 'real' and less understandable. Yes and no. My understanding of the reading is that the user gets a better understanding of the space he's _in_ if an HMD is used. However, if I'm designing an object then I can get just as much spatial awareness by using fishtank VR and putting the object on the equivalent of a lazy susan. Perceptual psychology suggests that it's easier for me to think about rotating the object rather than rotating myself anyway. >That's why I said that the mini-CAVE doesn't buy you much more than >an expanded display area. Of course, you can do stereo, but you >can do stereo on a monitor as well. I think there's actually an interesting question here: how large does a monitor have to be before your motor perceptual system stops telling you that you're looking at a box and starts telling you you're looking through a window? Or is there something else we need to do besides size? I'm sure head tracking is probably a part. Would embedding the monitor in a wall help? Putting a picture frame around it? Thoughts? >Now, if we had a mini-CAVE type display that _moved_ so the display >always filled the user's FOV, no matter which way he was facing >(like the displays on an HMD), THAT would be a cool toy! I actually thought about this once when I was bored, but couldn't think of an economical way to get it done. Jeff