From bowman@cc.gatech.edu Thu May 7 12:34:03 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 MAA14797 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (g3VYGc5zwP2eTpVVrLaT/EDreMSwMewG@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA10884 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:34:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA32236 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 May 1998 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lennon.cc.gatech.edu (bowman@lennon.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.9.20]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA10826 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bowman@localhost) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) id MAA14765 for 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:33:33 -0400 (EDT) From: bowman@cc.gatech.edu (Doug Bowman) Message-Id: <199805071633.MAA14765@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> Subject: Re: HMDs, CAVEs, COVEs, monitors, oh my! To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu (3D UI List) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:33:33 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199805070512.WAA04937@wheaten.hitl.washington.edu> from "Jeff Pierce" at May 7, 98 01:09:23 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Status: RO A while back, Jeff Pierce wrote: > At 12:54 AM 5/7/98 -0700, Ivan Poupyrev wrote: > >1) The classic HMD vs. CAVEs question. I have to admit that I am leaning > >towards the CAVE side right now (or projection/large screen interaction at > >least). > > What do other people think on this issue? Will most 3D UI's be created on > the desktop (Fishtank VR or even non-head tracked), in CAVEs, or using HMDs? > > Personally, I'm leaning more and more toward a mini-CAVE (which I believe > someone nicknamed COVEs awhile back - anyone have a ref handy on this?). I agree with Jeff that current HMDs are not wonderful for real work because of weight, claustrophobia, tethering, resolution,... 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. 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. 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. 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! Doug -- Doug Bowman, Ph.D. Candidate College of Computing, GVU Center, Georgia Tech Room 388 CRB, (404) 894-5104 bowman@cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Phd/Doug.Bowman/