From: "Liquid Image Corp." Subject: Re: INDUSTRY: Successful VR Apps Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:06:40 -0600 Mark Mine wrote in article <199611302058.PAA26974@puffer.cs.unc.edu>... > Greetings, > > My question: Does anybody really use VR for real work? > In other words, I'm interested in hearing what people consider > examples of "Successful VR applications". I guess one would consider a VR Application successful if it met their needs and served a purpose. > Personally, I don't know of any clear cut winners, but some examples > that come close (and perhaps could have been even more effective given > improvements in technology such as display resolution and rendering > speed) include: > > - Architectural walkthrough (such as the work here at UNC) > - Phobia treatment via exposure therapy (like the work at Georgia Tech) > - Scientific visualization (NASA's virtual windtunnel, UNC's > nanomanipulator project) > - Marketing (virtual showrooms) > > Like I said, none of these are clear cut winners (i.e. they haven't > gotten much beyond the research labs), but at least they show some > promise. Now is this fact, that they haven't gone much beyond the research labs, a function of the application or the people creating and marketing the application? Tony Asch at Straylight has been quite successful in the Experiential Advertising market. (Hope I'm not giving away any secrets Tony!) Cabletron's Virtual Theatre and AfterShock's VR tour were just two of Straylight's successful endeavors. Horizon's "Cutty Sark" VR tour has seen many venues and has enjoyed, from what most people would consider, great commercial success. If your interpretation of success is: capital gain (profit), recognition for achievement (prestige) and solving a problem (perseverance) then these examples truly fit the bill. > In forming your response please indicate how much you think the > "success" of the application is due to being in a virtual environment > (immersion, direct manipulation, etc.) and how much is just due to > real-time interactive graphics (i.e. it would have worked just as well > sitting in front of a conventional computer monitor, forget all the > fancy tracking, displays, and input devices). Also, what is keeping > the "near misses" from being "direct hits"? Cost? Quality of the > technology? Wrong applications? > The success of any application is largely due to the people involved in the project and not the technology, unlike you seem to view it. For any application to be commercially successful, it requires marketing. Technology does not sell itself. In the case of Straylight's Experiential Advertising - its technology was a means to an end not the solution itself. It seems that they knew how to use the technology of the day to create a successful product: VR draws a crowd. A VR that incorporates selling a product is a powerful tool. Put the two together and your sales people have a powerful tool to use on a crowd. The actual performance of the VR experience, if I may be so bold, at a tradeshow is secondary - 40 flat shaded polys/sec or 4,000,000 texture mapped ones - to the user - it doesn't make a big difference. Sure pretty pictures are nice but they are there to try it once and then the sales people dive in on them and sell, sell, sell. If Cabletron's booth was full 100% of the time, it would be safe to say that it was a successful application - their sales people were busy all of the time. If the AfterShock VR system is used 100% of the time when they are in the bar, it too would be a successful application - people leave the bar equating AfterShock to Fun. With respect to keeping the "near misses" from being "direct hits", I would probably say that it would be the people behind the project. They are the ones that have to pitch the idea, work with the client, and create the content - it's definitely not the technology. If the technology would be able to sell itself, I'd send my laptop on sales calls as it is cheaper to ship it by FedEx than for me to hop on a plane. Cost is sometimes an issue, but if the long term gains can be accurately relayed by the sales person, the customer can usually be convinced to "expand" their budget. I make this all sound easy. Don't get me wrong, the pitching/selling of an idea is harder than programming the application and building the product. That is probably why many applications remain in the lab and not in the commercial arena - the technology's there but no one is pitching it. Regards, Tony Havelka ------------------------------------ Liquid Image Corporation 659 Century Street Winnipeg, MB R3H 0L9 Canada Vox: 204-772-0137 Fax: 204-772-0239 Url: http://www.liqiudimage.ca/vr/