From: Robert W. Lindeman [gogo@SEAS.GWU.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:53 PM To: bowman@vt.edu Cc: 3dui List Subject: RE: comparing VE displays On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Doug Bowman wrote: > This is definitely the type of thing that I'm going after. > However, as you well know, you can't always describe something > in terms of just its component parts (that just ruins my whole > dissertation, doesn't it? :-) ). In other words, an HMD > just has a different "feel" to it than a CAVE which is not > solely due to the differences in resolution, brightness, FOV, > etc. Even a workbench in vertical orientation is qualitatively > much different than one in horizontal orientation. > > I guess what I'm wondering is if we can determine some principles > that apply directly to the common types of displays rather than > using a level of abstraction - these types of principles are more > easily applied by the practitioner. For example, "Use a CAVE if > your task requires a high level of subjective immersion" is better > from the practitioner point of view than, "Subjective immersion > increases with increased field of view and decreased encumberance." > > Thoughts, anyone? In terms of interaction, I think there are a few very task-dependent things to consider, like (the terms may not be optimal, but it's a start): 1) "Working volume" - Surgical simulation might only require a working volume within arms' reach, while a dismounted infantry simulation might require a few meters (i.e. CAVE). The surgical simulator might do fine with a desktop stereo display, but the DI sim might need something more immersive, like a CAVE or HMD. 2) "Need for real-world things" - Do we need to see real-world props for interaction, like a gun, or can we be completely virtual, like a molecular simulation? UNC ultrasound/live action combo might not work in a CAVE, for instance. 3) "Cumber" - Some users/tasks need to reduce the difficulty of getting into the VR "stuff" and don't want tethers. Surgeons are another example where they need the least amount of "technology interference" when performing the task, so 3D stereo glasses might be the limit (maybe not?) 4) "Number of participants" - Some technologies scale better than others (e.g. you can only track so many people in a cave, but you can have multiple HMDs (Hmmm, I guess you could have multiple CAVEs too...) Other, more simple considerations might be physical space, monetary costs, etc. Maybe "Level of Subjective Immersion" is a good, semi-abstract term to put more focus on, which has been done somewhat in the past. On a final note (at least for this message), I think the combination of technologies used (i.e. visual feedback, audio feedback, tracking techniques, etc.) taken together is important also, rather than just looking at the dispplay technologies in isolation. Ready........GO! -Rob --- _/ _/ _/ _/ * Robert W. Lindeman, Sc.D. _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Institute for Computer Graphics _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ * The George Washington University _/ _/ * email: gogo@seas.gwu.edu _/_/_/ _/_/_/ * http://tangle.seas.gwu.edu/~gogo/