This report is also available as an Acrobat file.
Contents
3 Survey results: Virtual Reality activity in the U.K.
1995 survey 1994 survey
Less than 1 year 5 4
1-2 years 12 18
2-3 years 21 6
3-4years 8 3
4-5 years 5 2
more than 5 years 10 4
Both this year's Survey and the 1994 Survey indicate that the majority of groups were formed in the period 1992-3.
1995 survey 1994 survey
Company/Clients 31 21
University internal 20 17
SERC/EPSRC/MRC/ACME/ESRC 13 15
Unspecified Government agency 8 4
EC/CEC/ESPRIT 4 7
Department of Trade and Industry 3 6
HEFCE/HEFCW 2 0
Defence Research Agency/Ministry of Defence 2 6
Self 1 0
Charities 0 3
Department of the Environment 0 1
Department of Health 0 1
Health and Safety Executive 0 1
IED 0 1
The overall balance of funding does not appear to have changed significantly since 1994, with the notable exception of work funded by companies and their clients. This could be interpreted as a healthy increased investment by industry. Perhaps more worryingly, there seems not to be any increase in the numbers reporting other sources of support - especially for academic work, such as Research Council or other government (national or European) funding. Given that there are still many unanswered questions about VR, and the fact that a sizeable proportion of respondents were from the academic sector, this is a notable finding.
Respondents were asked to describe their interest and activity in VR in two categories:
- The focus of their VR work, indicating whether they were concerned with hardware or software development, VR peripherals, applying VR to specific application areas, and so on.
- Which, if any, specific application areas they were interested in.
Reported areas of focus were:
1995 survey 1994 survey
Applications development 39 18
Human factors/HCI 14 8
Software architectures 9 3
VR peripherals development 8 4
Perception/action/cognitive aspects
in virtual environments 7 2
Data visualization 3 0
VRML 3 0
Algorithms research 2 0
Education/Training 2 2
Integrated manufacturing 2 1
Socio-cognitive issues 2 1
Speech 2 0
CSCW 1 0
Parallel architectures 1 2
Simulation 1 0
Social issues of VR 1 1
Stereoscopic display systems 1 1
Other 0 9
The range of applications and activities covered remains broad. There has been a substantial increase in applications development, possibly reflecting the increase in industrially-funded work. A number of new topics have appeared, including data visualization and VRML.
There was a wide range of specific application areas reported, including:
1995 survey 1994 survey
Education and training 11 3
Information visualization 10 6
Construction planning and scheduling 9 2
Driving/flight simulation 7 1
CAD/CAM 6 4
Medical simulation/training 6 5
Virtual retailing/Marketing 5 0
Industrial simulation 4 2
Information systems/Databases 4 0
Installation/maintenance planning 4 0
Architecture 3 3
CSCW/Teleconferencing 3 1
Entertainment 3 4
Spatial skills 3 1
VRML 3 0
Artificial intelligence 2 0
Cognitive aspects of virtual worlds 2 1
Disabled user applications 2 0
Evacuation and safety 2 1
Fluid dynamics 2 1
Modelling 2 1
Robotics 2 1
Art 1 0
Discrete-event simulation 1 0
Ergonomics 1 0
Military simulation 1 2
Animation 1 0
Other 0 10
Respondents were asked what they saw as the specific benefits VR brought to their work, and replied as follows:
1995 survey 1994 survey
Increased and improved human-computer interaction 30 13
Better visualization of information 24 8
A sense of 'presence' in a virtual environment 11 7
More rapid prototyping 10 4
Improved simulation 9 3
Cooperative working in virtual environments 6 2
Improved education and training methods 5 2
Quicker decision making 1 1
Study of perception/action 1 0
Applying cognitive skills 0 1
Substantially more people are reporting greater perceived benefits of VR. The extent to which this remains an expectation rather than a proven benefit remains unclear.
By far the biggest increase in hardware is the doubling in reported use of Silicon Graphics machines. PC usage has increased only marginally. At this rate, SG will probably have overtaken PCS by the time this report appears.
Superscape remains the most popular software package, with dVISE/dVS in second place. The other striking thing is the broad range of software in use. Much of this cannot be classed by any stretch of the imagination as VR software, suggesting that many groups are still developing their own solutions to problems using underlying graphics systems. As in last year's report this may imply quite a large degree of duplication of effort.
1995 survey 1994 survey
Hardware
PC 32 29
Silicon Graphics 31 15
Division 5 6
Sun 4 4
Apple 3 5
HP/Apollo 2 1
Interaction Methods
HMD (commercial) 21 13
Magnetic/ultrasonic tracker 19 10
Stereo glasses 14 8
3D mouse 13 10
Joystick 10 0
Spaceball 10 6
Glove/EXOS 7 11
Tactile devices 5 0
Sound 4 6
Eye tracker 3 0
Boom/arm 2 0
Large-screen projection 2 0
Motion hardware 2 0
HMD (home-made) 1 2
Glove (home-made) 1 0
Private Eye 1 0
Touchscreen 1 2
Voice input 0 1
Software
Superscape VRT 17 13
dVISE/dVS 10 3
GL/OGL/Performer/Inventor 7 2
3D studio 6 3
VRML/Webspace 5 0
World Toolkit/Sense8 6 7
JACK 3 0
Renderware 3 6
MultiGen 2 0
PHIGS 2 0
Rend386 2 3
Worldview 2 0
AudioLab 1 1
Avril 1 0
AVS/Explorer 1 0
DIVE 1 2
Quicktime VR l 0
Vista Pro 1 0
Vroom l 0
Wavefront 1 0
MR Toolkit 0 2
Swoop VR 0 1
There are nine new entries in the list of organisations using or supporting immersive VR this year (an asterisk against an organisation's name indicates a new entry since the 1994 survey):
- BAe Bristol Human factors
- * CADCentre CAD applications
- Division Supplier
- DRA Human factors
- * GMS Supplier/human modelling
- * RAF Innsworth Training systems
- * RAL Interactive systems
- Virtuality Entertainment
- Virtual Presence Supplier
whilst university groups were:
- Belfast Robotics
- * Brunel Simulation
- * City University, London Human interaction
- Edinburgh
- * Essex
- Heriot-Watt
- * Loughbrough
- Manchester
- Nottingham
- QMW, London
- Southampton
- *UCL
- * University of Wales
The feeling most commonly reported was that the U.K. has so far conducted research of excellent quality in the field of VR and its applications, and that it is ideally placed to become the world leader, if sufficient government funding and support is forthcoming.
Some quotes from respondents:
Research is vital for sustaining the present UK world lead in commercial VR systems.
VR is a crucial technology and will genuinely transform the world.
The UK can be a world leader.
If the UK is not at the front in VR, it is nowhere.
The UK has always been a tremendous source of innovation, and VR is no exception.
Many respondents specifically requested increased and targeted funding for academic/industrial collaborations, such as a special EPSRC programme. This funding should be medium/long term, and not be aimed at short-term 'quick' projects.
- Some quotes from respondents:
- Organise a 'Community Club' along the lines of the Alvey Vision Club.
- Extend the activities of the UK VR SIG and Virtual Reality Society.
- Funding bodies must decide in whose court the VR ball falls.
- Research Council funding of 'Blue Skies' research.
- Selection and focus on real industrial requirements.
- Encouragement/backing from industry to UK academic research groups.
- Greater collaboration and information exchange between active VR groups.
- Stable, long-term funding that is free from the immediate supposed needs of the market, and desire that everything must immediately make a profit for someone or else be considered useless.
- Coordination of VR activities across research councils.
- Funding for industry-led R & D programmes.
- Wider use of British-made VR products in training and simulation systems.
- It is critically important that research be coordinated and multidisciplinary.
- Establishment and encouragement of 'champions of industry'.
- Partnerships between industry and government-funded research organisations
- Targeted research programmes.
- Specific funds available for conferences.
- Broader range research groups.
- The development of standards.
- More applied R & D sponsored by the Government.
- Incentives for industry to participate but not dictate (i.e., avoid just product development).
- More partnering between groups and industry
- Subsidised work experience for university students.
Contents
