From: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca (Marc Bernatchez) Subject: INDUSTRY: The VR future (was Immersion studies) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 96 15:15:48 GMT Message-ID: <535u1a$koa@news.bellglobal.com> Organization: dep. de Genie electrique I don't know if I'm the only one to have noticed(I'm quite sure I'm not) but there seems to be a tendency for discouragement in these days of VR. I have also noted with disappointment the disappearing of press release posts. I know I did argue that some of them were too hypish but I would have hoped that they keep on posting, changing their format rather than stop posting. Is it because the industry of VR is slowly dying? Maybe we have come to a point where a major innovation must be put forward in the field in order to keep it on track. The VR we know of is what could be compared to the good old DOS OS environment back in the 80's. I'm talking about the way we currently build our VR systems. They are all very different and there is no standard interface. Each VR system is like how the DOS apps were in the 80's... You always needed the manuals to get them to work for you because they always implemented their proprietary interface (if there was any). That's a major problem of the current VR now. We seriously need to get a common ground platform for VR designer to sit on. That's the plug-n-play Mr. Rothman was referring to. I'm talking of this in part because I have noticed this fact a while back and decided to build my master thesis around it. The main system I have put up is a primitive VR GUI system. The VRML isn't taking off partially because of that. It's no more than an other file format to represent 3D geometries for their displaying with a browser. The format came before the engine... There is no viable VRML authoring tool out there. Sure, VRML is cool some will say but will you start to build a VRML scene by hand from scratch. Not likely for the masses... It's not plug-n-play, not easy to use (creating things of your own I meant). In article <324E110E.31E@well.com>, Bob Jacobson wrote: >Linda Jacobson wrote: > >> The point is, VR has already made the transition from the "research >> lab" to the factory and to the development team and to the training >> center. We have the hardware, the architecture, the >> algorithms. Companies are making money selling VR as a solution to >> professionals. Now we, the VR development community, must go about >> transforming it from a business/industry/techno-elitist tool into one >> that's affordable/worthwhile for the masses. Linda, I'm not targeting you in the next lines. This last sentence makes me smile a bit since SGI has never had a reputation of being on the cheap side. I totally agree with you and hope that now that you work for them, you can better defend the point that they need to target high volume / low cost clients. A VR PC station for 2000$ US and less from SGI would make quite some noise. Sorry for the publicity folks. >With all due regard, respect, and affection for my faux-sister >Linda, no. We do not have a solution for professionals. Pro- >fessional what? I would venture that fewer than 10 percent of >all VR "solutions" are conceived with an understanding of cus- >tomer needs first and foremost. More often, a technological >feat is accomplished and then everyone goes out and hunts down >a solution. System engineering of VR is almost unknown, aided >and abetted by the fact that few enough VR ventures have the >means to take on vetted CEOs and other business types able to >steer the firms to real business opportunities (and dump the >rest). I would agree with Bob here. Understanding the customer needs is very important. I will add that you also MUST study the human factors involved in using the VR system. Building a system without studying if it can cause trauma to your users is very wrong. The location-based entertainment centers are the biggest offenders that come to my mind. From the few experiences I had with these, I saw all range of bad VR system design. Cheap HMD with extremely poor resolution. Tracking lag... It's evident they put a bunch of VR component together and made it work but... >As for applications for the masses: why? Let the masses wait. >Until our infant industry can satisfy high-value applications >-- i.e., business applications willing to pay a higher price >for robust, reliable systems -- we certainly cannot afford to >sell low-margin items. We haven't crossed The Chasm yet. Humm, maybe, maybe not. The problem is mainly technological. Low cost systems are hard to build without sacrifying some quality. The current technology doesn't permit the minimal level of quality the market is asking for(which is driven by hypish VRish movies that shows VR we can barely dream of!). That is why it may be harder to sell low cost system to the public right now. In that regard I would say as Bob. Let's wait until we get 3 to 5 times better LCD pixel densities etc., so that we can have a 900$ US HMD having the FOV and angular resolution of what cost 40000$ today. Same goes for other components. We have made a long way since the multi million dollars required in the 80's to the 20000$ US or so required now for the same level of VR. It's not yet at the home consumer market, that's for sure. >But I'm optimistic we will. That makes two of us Bob ;-) I'm very optimistic...but we may need to start doing something concrete to boost the VR development a bit. Best regards Marc Bernatchez | E-mail: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca C.O.P.L. (local plt-00307) |============================================ Dep. Genie electrique | http://www.gel.ulaval.ca/~mbernat Universite LAVAL | http://www.imaginative.com/VResources Quebec, Canada |============================================ G1K 7P4 | Virtual Reality is the future of computers ==========================================================================