From poup@mic.atr.co.jp Fri Jun 19 06:39:52 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 GAA12984 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (OjRwx6DmPNHnRMwECoMfREv4eqy7rTCs@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA05087 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhost.mic.atr.co.jp (mic.atr.co.jp [133.186.20.201]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00860 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop.mic.atr.co.jp by mailhost.mic.atr.co.jp (8.9.0+3.0W/3.6W) id TAA05419; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:38:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from mic.atr.co.jp by pop.mic.atr.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W04/07/98) id TAA00596; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:38:46 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <358B1F6C.F3E29DC@mic.atr.co.jp> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:33:16 -0700 From: Ivan Poupyrev Organization: MIC Labs, ATR International X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 3D UI list <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: input devices References: <61AC5C9A4B9CD11181A200805F57CD5404326B63@red-msg-44.dns.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO > Jeff Pierce wrote: > Yes, but... (c'mon, you know you saw this coming) the extra precision > doesn't matter in all cases. If I'm attempting to create fine art in VR, > then yes, I want as much precision as possible. However, how much > precision do the tasks we've created in VR really require? > > - Architectural walkthrough > - Entertainment > - Simulation > > I would argue that these are the big three applications where we've > demonstrated that 3D/VR is useful. And how much precision is required for > these tasks? Let's face it, if you require lots of precision you're > probably not working in a virtual environment anyway, you're working > on the desktop. May be you do not need precision for any of these applications, but I do think you need glove input for any of this applications as well :) I would like to add to the Ken's point that it is not precision only that is important but also range of motion. And hand held sensors potentially provide wider range as it is easier to rotate objects with fingers then with the whole hand. It does not work of course if props are too heavy or large. This is I think a problem with the Polhemus ball sensor: it is almost impossible to rotate it with fingers only. > Ken wrote: > > The other key issue, which I don't think anyone mentioned > > yet, is that with a glove you absolutely need a clutching > > mechanism if you want to orient objects in any direction. > > With a hand-held tracker or prop, then a clutch isn't > > necessary (but may be desirable depending on the precise task > > constraints) -- so as a designer you have another option that > > I feel you don't have with gloves. I do not quite understand why clutch is not needed when you use hand held sensors. Can we assume that there is any practical applications where user can always orient/move virtual objects from starting to final position in one move? It seems to me that most of the manipulation tasks are iterative in nature: you move/rotate objects, release them, evaluate, move/rotate them again to adjust their final position, etc. I think all these steps should be considered as one interactive sequence, since the task is accomplished only when the object is positioned with required accuracy. In this case the clutch is a necessity. Besides, clutching mechanism is equivalent to the mechanism that allows the user to start/end interaction sequence which is needed anyway ... Ivan -- Ivan Poupyrev [poup@isl.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/poup@hitl.washington.edu] Researcher, MIC Lab, ATR International, Japan 0774-951432] Ph. D. Candidate, ISL, Hiroshima University, Japan 0824-212959] Visiting Scientist, HITL, University of Washington, US 206-6161474] http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/poup]