From: Michael Almquist Subject: CONF: EFDPMA VR conference review, Washington DC, June 1-2, 92' part 1 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 06:55:37 -0700 Review of the 1992 EFDPMA (Education Foundation of the Data Processing Management Association) Conference on "VIRTUAL REALITY", Washington, DC, June 1-2, 1992. This is the FIRST "REAL" VR conference that I have attended. Those of you that didn't make it you missed something inspiring. I think it would be safe to say that about 80% of "THE" groups and fore runners in this field were represented there - most of them giving presentations. There was virtually no "HYPE" and many participants warned against the spreading of hype. ALTHOUGH, I agree and disagree with them. I agree that spreading hype will cause problems with the media, consumers, etc BUT, I don't think VR is walking the same path as AI. For millions of dollars you can not obtain a thinking machine (a sentient being like some were promising) BUT, for millions of dollars you CAN obtain a near photorealistic inclusive VR system. I've been in the computer realm for 12 years or so and I have seen about 1,000 years actually go by (see succeeding posting "I've seen 1,000 years"). Computers keep getting smaller, cheaper, and faster. A virtual reality system last year cost approximately $200,000 from VPL. This year its $20,000. Next year $2,000? Prices are dropping and MANY people are now getting involved. I've seen approximately 8+ HMDs, 3+ Public Domain VR systems NOT counting the 6+ distributed programming environments that could sufficiently facilitate a VR platform, 10+ I/O devices (including 3 hand devices), etc. Its happening. Well, on to the conference: KEYNOTE: "Virtual Reality - The Serious Side", Dr. Jonathan D. Waldern, Director of Operations, W Industries It was unfortunate that I had a commute from my home in Rockville, MD to Crystal City, VA (where the conference was being held) cause I missed the early morning sessions - honestly, I DID try to get up around 6:00 am. You know us hackers - up at 1:00 pm or so (: Anyways, I missed Dr. Waldern's presentation although, I couldn't believe it - perhaps I'm easy to excite but I was sitting RIGHT NEXT TO HIM! I wanted to say something to him but didn't know what. What do you say to one of the pioneers of VR? I was afraid the only thing that would come out would be "DUH?!". "Virtual Environment Technology", Dr. David Zeltzer, Director, Computer Graphics and Animation Technology, Group Media Lab, MIT Dr. Zeltzer preferred to use the term Virtual environment (VE) as opposed to the oxymoron "virtual reality"; I agree, VR is NOT appropriate. Dr. Zeltzer said, "we will never obtain VR" and within his abstract he states, "`Virtual reality', I think is a good name for this unattainable goal which nevertheless drives much of our research." There was a ripple of exclamation throughout the crowd. Again, I agree/disagree. I don't see TRUE photorealistic VR with true sensory feedback (taste, smell, touch) perhaps like STNG's (Star Trek the Next Generation) holodeck happening in my lifetime but perhaps the next generation ? BUT, the advancements in the field over the past 2 years can not be ignored. It is unfortunate that everyone and their brother is doing (what they call) VR. How many "inclusive fly-by" demos can the world take? VERY FEW VR systems/worlds are worthwhile. The concept HAS been proven - stop reinventing the wheel and start answering some tough question - like "Now what?" One can not quickly dismiss Dr. Zeltzer for he has spent a great deal of time and energy building virtual environments; this I feel is on the appropriate track and but the tip of the iceberg. I am in COMPLETE agreement with Dr. Zeltzer's statement: "In addition to the computing platform, graphics engine and associated peripherals, the key components of a virtual environment for any application must be: 1. a set of computational models of objects and processes to be simulated, 2. a logical interface that specifies what parameters of the VE and its models can be changed, and when, and 3. a physical interface consisting of visual, tactual and auditory displays for presenting the virtual world to the human participant, and a set of sensing devices to monitor the participants' actions." Key concepts, AUTONOMY, INTERACTION, and PRESENCE. These past 2-3 years have been spent by various groups building their VR platforms (forgive me for not mentioning YOUR system but how about, Naval Postgraduate School's NPSNET system, Human Interface Technology Lab's VEOS, VPL's, Sense8's, Canon's, UNC's for a few). Now, hopefully the next 2-3 years will bring forth a wealth of useful tools. "Construction in Cyberspace - Developing a Next Generation Programming Environment for Virtual Reality", Mr. Randal Walser, Manager of Cyberspace Project, Autodesk We can thank Autodesk for another good term - spacemakers. Spacemakers are those that build/design spaces. Within HITL they are referred to as worldbuilders. There was an interesting quote in the abstract that VR platform builders MUST incorporate, "Of course, a virtual world wouldn't be very interesting if it were filled only with static objects. In Autodesk's cyberspace system, every object has an opportunity, each simulation cycle, to run any program it wishes. This can be anything from a simple instruction to change the object's location, to a thread in a lightweight multitasking system, to an altogether different simulation system that uses only portions of Autodesk's system. Using this feature, a spacemaker can `hook in' a simple production system, or table of condition/action pairs, that cause objects to behave in certain programmed ways to conditions in the virtual environment." Mr. Walser also said, "VR has existed for quite sometime; people who play Dungeons and Dragons have known this for a while." One parting comment, I feel sorry for Autodesk and their VR project. It seems that they have been promising their Cyberspace software for over a year now (perhaps two). Autodesk has lost William Bricken (helped HITL get VEOS working), Eric Guillisen (built Sense8), and I believe Andrew Prell (built Alternate World Technologies). "Mission Planning and Debriefing Using Helmet Mounted Display Systems", Lt. Col. Phil Amburn, Instructor, Computer Science, Air Force Institute of Technology As the title suggests, he is working on implementing a system to allow one to re-live a sortie. "VR death" comes to mind. Perhaps LawnMower Man wasn't too far off?! Mostly about VR Red Flag debriefing simulation/play back - simple system with mouse - just playback and mapping. "Enhancing Pilot Situation Awareness (SA) in Air Combat", Dr. Emily Howard, Engineering Specialist, Rockwell International Corporation Main concept from her talk: "user interfaces are hard to define/design/etc". ALSO, you VR builders MUST enable your system to "filter, sort, correlate, prioritize, identify, monitor, automate, advise, and assist" (among others I'm sure). Else, you are NOT doing worthwhile work - YAFT (Yet Another Fly Through). She stated within her abstract, "To paraphrase the cynics, why would any pilot be interested in virtual reality, when plain ordinary reality is challenging enough? The answer, of course, is that properly applied, VR can become part of the solution to meeting the challenges faced by combat pilots. Additionally, some of the surrounding controversy seems to depend on the choice of terms that one uses to define VR." A quote of a quote summing up her talk was, "Indeed, the very purpose of user-interface design is subject to hundreds of different - and conflicting - interpretations, [resulting in] two different cultures, the computer scientists and the psychologists, who aren't talking to each other anymore." from LA Times. Imagine that, conflicting interpretations and people not talking to each other anymore from LA?! "Simulation and Training Based Technology", Dr. Richard Thurman, Research Psychologist, Armstrong Laboratory, Aircrew Training Division, Williams Air Force Base Good point was, "The `Primary Components of VR' can be placed into three categories: Load Reduction (physical, mental-cognitive), Dynamic Interaction, and Discovery Orientation." AGAIN, a majority of the systems on the market DO NOT incorporate this - YAFT! Dr. Thurman will be remembered forever for saying, "I feel like the rich cousins." They have lots of neat toys (fiber optic head mounts with adaptive eye tracking). PLUS, his research has shown that VR doesn't tend to improve retention of cognitive and learning. "Educational and Technological Foundations for the Construction of a 3D Virtual World", Dr. Michael Zyda, Associate Professor, Computer Science, Naval Postgraduate School Some of you might've seen the flying cows, etc demo at last years SIGGRAPH 92'. Dr. Zyda mentioned that attempting to take and refine SIMNET is/was a big process and there was MUCH information that was omitted or too extraneous - so for you "I want a protocol/description language" people out there - SIMNET is a good concept but needs refinement for OUR usage. However, Dr. Zyda's works on NPSnet (system growing from SIMNET) is something to watch for. A prophesy from Dr. Zyda, "The development of 3D visual simulation systems on inexpensive, commercially available graphics workstations is occurring today and will be commonplace in the near future." Another GREAT point that Dr. Zyda made was, "We see this in that the discussion at some organizations/companies are on the topics of `virtual sex' and `cooperative play' rather than on how such systems allows us to understand/interact with our problem/application at a higher level of abstraction than previously possible. We hope such discussions do not destroy the credibility of the field." HALLELUJAH! I hope that many people will be inspired by this posting and we'll start to address some of the "meat" issues and get away from "Sega-R-Us" and "What is the address for ?!?!?!?" I did find humor their Flying Killer Tomatoes that turned into catsup bottles when killed (: AND, as always, some immortal quotes, "We have seen many virtual worlds systems that seem to indicate that the lack of collision detection is a `feature'. It may be more lack of compute power and lack of experience constructing a 3D virtual world than a real `feature'." As to where Dr. Zyda found his texture maps, "We found the sand textures in gif files underneath the bathing beauties." (: So those gifs are worth something after all?! "Virtual Environments Presented via Head-Mounted, Computer-Driven Displays", Mr. Stephen Ellis, Group Leader, Advanced Displays and Spatial Perception Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center THE biggest buzz word at this conference was lets create "AUGMENTATIVE" VR. Not totally-inclusive-ignore-the-real-world but add/subtract extraneous information to make our lives easier. Of course, you should all be familiar with their work such as the VR wind tunnel, Mars lander, astronaut task training, telerobotics, etc. Dr. Zelter felt the key concepts for VR or similar systems are AUTONOMY, INTERACTION, and PRESENCE. Mr. Ellis adds his $0.02 stating that VR or similar systems should have a CONTEXT, a GEOMETRY, and DYNAMICS. Again, lets start moving away from YAFT systems! Mr. Ellis had an intriguing idea within his definition of dynamics - "For example, a syntactically correct command typed at a computer terminal can cause execution of a program with specific parameters. In this case the information in the command plays the role of the energy and the resulting rate of change in the logical state of the device plays the role of acceleration. -- This analogy suggest the possibility of developing an `informational mechanics' in which some measure of motion through the states of an information processing devices may be related to the information content of the incoming messages." NEAT IDEAS THERE! In addition, there was another intriguing concept such as, "Our sensory and cognitive interpretive systems are predisposed to process incoming information in ways that normally result in a correct interpretation of the external environment and in some cases they may be said to actually `resonate' with specific patterns of input that are uniquely informative about our environment." Mr. Ellis said one of the MOST inspiring things IMHO, "It is difficult to foretell the future practical mass-market applications for virtual environments. Like three-dimensional movies, the technology could only be a transient infatuation of visionary technophiles, but the situation is more likely analogous to the introduction of the first personal computer, the Altair. ... In fact, spreadsheets programs like VISICALC had not even been conceived!" This seems to be the reoccurring "black box" answer - "I don't know but I'm sure someone will find something for it." (: Anyone out there wanna help me find "something for it?" "Envisioning New Applications", Mr. David Smith, President, Virtus Corporation I saw Mr. Smith's presentation at the UNC conference in Feb. His system is hard to define. Is it VR? What is VR? All that I can say is that it is a wonderful 3D rendering/visualization package. It goes beyond this in that it is realtime - you see the model as you develop it - and that it incorporates texture mapping. He showed that via texture mapping you can accomplish much including incorporating video segments (ie. lots of texture maps shown at a fast rate). Someone had to say it but Mr. Smith was the first, "One texture is worth 1000 polygons." -- quoted from Fred Brooks. Mr. Smith also said that "the mark of a good interface is invisibility." He showed a VR world that he created that is a start but is still a far way off. He created a VR main street and VR shopping center. There has to be a better way of developing/design virtual worlds then just uprooting our physical world and putting it in VR. A project that I hope he continues and I feel has the potential of a BIG payoff is the VR storybook. You can now read a story and wander around in a 3D VR model. He showed of a demo of a castle and wandering around. I'd LOVE to be able to purchase a storybook viewer and then purchase VR story cassettes! Later Teddy Ruxpin (sp?)! "Virtual Reality - Are There Real Applications?", Dr. John Latta, President, 4th Wave Dr. Latta talked about an aspect of VR I'd totally ignored (that is being a hacker). The market, what for, why, and who? I'm answering the how and time will answer the other questions hopefully. Some of Dr. Latta's interesting thoughts on potential markets/products: Criteria Product Type Market Segment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSUMER APPLICATIONS Achievement Skill Improvement Learning Exhibition Personal Identity VR Clothing Stimulation Physical Fitness VR Fitness Diversion Entertainment Games Novelty New Products VR Novelty Understanding Acquisition of Knowledge Learning BUSINESS APPLICATIONS Growth Improve Sales Enhance Sales Experience Profitability ROI Business Mission Specific Innovativeness R&D New Product Development Contribution of Employees Training Improvement of work skills GOVERNMENT/INSTITUTION APPLICATIONS Technology Base Visual Displays R&D Enhanced Operations Mission Control Surgery,flight,combat Improved Personal Force Training Simulation,gaming Lower Cost Missions Facility Substitution Virtual facilities Dr. Latta referred to a book that may become a MUST read for those in the VR community, "Ecological Psychology by J.J. Gibson" -- The psychology of the awareness and activities of individuals in a living environment. If anyone out there has read this book I'd LOVE it if you could give a yah or a nay and a brief description. Dr. Latta charted the VR growth/cycle for the next 1-5 years. I (being in the field) feel that his projections are somewhat restrained and possibly inaccurate. He stated that there would be "No significant PC VR Growth Until 1994." What about Canon's system? Or Sense8's? Or Ultima 4? "significant" is within the eye of the beholder - I see it happening before 1994 though. AND, some quick monetary figures, "$900 Million for consumer market, $1.05 Billion for business market, and $675 Million for R&D market". All in all, Dr. Latta's talk was a slap in the face with reality! He is forecasting a HOT time for 93'. Although, he did state that one field of technology that is lacking at the moment that COULD bring radical changes and/or acceleration of VR being accepted by the masses was nanotechnology. I hope Dr. Latta was joking when he said, "Microsoft 6.0 - watch out folks!". (: "Aerospace Applications of VR-Ongoing Research and Anticipated Applications of VR at Boeing", Dr. Chris Esposito, Lead Scientist, Boeing Computer Services Boeing is attempting to answer the question: "What do we do with VR?". The classic now what. Their efforts are both within the areas of "see-through" reality (AUGMENTING - theres that word again) and immersive virtual reality. Boeing sees "VR as a `Grand Challenge'" pulling on many diverse technology areas: CAD, Data Management, Distributed/Parallel systems, Simulation, Graphics hardware, rendering software, Novel I/O hardware devices, Signal processing, and New interaction techniques. Another reference that may be worth looking into would be "Augmented Reality, T. Caudell & D. Mizell, HICSS 25 (1/92)". Anyone able to give a review on this? Boeing is pushing the envelope - they estimate that they'll have to manage approx. 3.5 GB worth of data per plane. All in all, this is one of the few groups actually DOING something !YAFT. (thats not Yet Another Fly Through system for the illiterate (:). "The Flowsheet: Animation Used to Analyze and Present Information About Complex Systems", Dr. Bradford Smith, Director of Research, University of San Francisco, College of Professional Studies Dr. Smith stated the obvious with, "Bill Zachmann, in the March 1992 issue of PC Magazine, states that `the goggles and glove approach, while popular and newsworthy, was not necessarily where the greatest potential of virtual reality lies.' He goes on to say that `what we call virtual reality is nothing more than the use of computers to create simulated reality.'" IMHO I feel that groups such as MIT and University of Florida are ahead of the game in light of the fact that they've been involved in this field for a long time. Hopefully we can learn from their successes and dead-ends. Any lurkers out there from either of these groups that would like to enlighten us? What works? What hasn't? His talk was an interesting/fascinating discussion of the visualization of the abstraction of worlds. Although 2D, it was easy for one to grasp complex issues within this system. If its 2D is it VR or scientific visualization? Another good quote from Dr. Smith was, "Meaning does not exist in the data; meaning exists in the negotiated interpretation of the data." An interesting parting quote made by Dr. Smith was, "Data in STNG acts as an advisor - he is not the captain." Again, we need to be working on augmenting and not replacing reality - at least at this current crude state of technology. "Visual Analysis of Organizational Functioning", by Dr. Charles Grantham, University of San Francisco Dr. Grantham and Dr. Smith are both attempting to address the question of ease to comprehend abstract data modeling/simulation. Dr. Grantham made an interesting point when he said, "I spend 2 days in the office - although, I'm still working the other 3 days via cellular phone, email, etc. All I need to do is jack in. Many work this way today!" This would be unheard of two years ago and perhaps even just one. Where will we be in two more? "Telepresence Surgery", Col. Richard Satava, M.D., Chief of General Surgery, Silas B. Hayes Army Hospital, Fort Ord Let me be one of the first to say UNBELIEVABLE! I think its safe to say that everyone in the audience sat in their seats riveted. He showed a video tape of a surgeon via remote connection actually accomplishing difficult tasks - cutting tissue, stitching tissue, threading needles, etc etc etc. I would love to see how this system has matured in a year or two. He dubbed this "surgery 2000". In addition to this remote surgery he discussed utilization of "experts" - people removed geographically working locally as chief doctor/surgeon or as assisting chief expert. Plus the fascinating idea of superimposing/augmenting the surgeons reality with CAT scan information - possibly projecting this information onto the organs themselves. One of the most humorous things heard at the conference was utter by Col Satava -- "This is a little flight up your rectum without the messy business." Gotta love telepresence surgery (: "The Need for Establishing VR Requirements", Mr. Paul Breen, Department Head - Applied Technology, The MITRE Corporation This talk was filled with discussion some applications and hype. Sorry, nothing nice to say - this presentation was out of place. "Building a Framework for Future VR Systems", Mr. Joseph Mattoon, Research Psychologist, Armstrong Laboratory, Aircrew Training Division, Williams Air Force Base Mr. Mattoon discussed an aspect of VR that is/has been lacking - cognition. "To identify possible advantages VR technology has over other types of media, it is helpful to consider basic theories that explain the way humans acquire and process information. These theories are primarily concerned with human memory, i.e., the way in which we encode information so it can be stored in memory when we perceive it, and what happens to the information when we attempt to recall it." Sound simple? He discussed that fact that fidelity (completeness, realism, and timing) are VERY important. A fact that he stressed was, "we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Lots of research already exists about human cognitive skills." "These goals [related to VR] are closely aligned with those of instructional media: (a) increase the volume of meaningful information that learners can store in their memories over time (i.e., total knowledge gained). (b) increase the amount of information that learners can comprehend and remember per unit of time (i.e., speed of knowledge acquisition). In a similar manner, designers of human-machine interface (software and hardware) seek to (a) minimize the time a user needs to acquire skills for operating an automated system and (b) continue to improve user/system performance." "Spatiality appears to be the most important factor, and this is an important indication that cyberspace may have a substantial impact on learning. AND, perhaps the KEY to VR? "The purpose of mnemonic strategies is to enhance knowledge retention by providing effective means for organizing and encoding information in memory (Bellezza, 1986)." "Establish Design Principles for VR Technology", Mr. Craig Hubley This was an interesting discussion about VR and design principles that can not and should not be overlooked. Some concepts for software development/methodology was discussed - including the search for a "binding mechanism". Lots of good questions to ponder. Mr. Hubley's most memorable quote was, "Design is mostly about constraints". "Interactive Simulation in a Multi-person Virtual World", Mr. Larry Koved, Research Staff Member, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Laboratory Mr. Koved gave an overview of the work being done at IBM and their system they displayed at SIGGRAPH 91'. Somewhat superficial - no nitty gritty details. "Putting the Reality in VR", Dr. Richard Economy, Manager of Advanced Engineering, GE Aerospace This was an UNBELIEVABLE presentation. His presentation receives "the most ooohs and aaaahs" award. He discussed and presented an amazing near photorealistic virtual reality. His group has concentrated on work trying to minimize polygon description of object and texture mapping. FYI, their research has shown a maximum of 100ms delay or 60Hz is required for believable flight simulation and a maximum of 200ms delay or 30Hz is required for believable tank/armor simulation. Unfortunately Dr. Economy ducked out before I had the chance to ask him what hardware platform he was using to generate these near-photorealistic realtime texture mapped images - rumor has it that it was something from Evans and Sutherland - anyone out there able to verify this? The only thing that marred his presentation (IMHO) was the statement, "To those of us in the flight simulation business, virtual reality is simply a logical extension of today's visual simulation technology." I disagree. My definition includes a merging of human and computer - a human/computer interface that is nearly invisible. It is NOT "simply" a YAFT. I'm also sorry to let personal fear get in the way but there was a comment made that made the little hairs on my neck stand up - "the ultimate goal, perhaps unachievable in the fullest sense, is hand-to-hand combat with a virtual enemy." Can we say ala "Lawnmower Man"? VR has SO much potential for good and education - its a shame that some boys can't grow up and still need to resort to force. Lets let the woman run our world (: "Televirtuality: Status of Projects Around the World", Dr. Robert Jacobson, Associate Director, The Human Interface Technology Laboratory, The Washington Technology Center (WorlDesign, Seattle, WA) Dr. Jacobson, like Dr. Latta, discussed the market and driving forces of the potential VR market. However, Dr. Jacobson's views were a little cheery and forthcoming than Dr. Latta's. In addition, Dr. Jacobson stated that technology is rather crude (as to what is needed for "good" VR systems) BUT, there have and are going to be various demonstrations of the televirtuality's concept such as: - Sense8/Intel/Boston Computer Museum: "Virtual Playroom" - Carnegie-Mellon/Asahi Electronics: "Distributed Virtual Art Museum" - San Diego Supercomputer Center: "Distributed Laboratory" - BellSouth/GTE/Fujitsu/MCNC/NCSU/UNC: VISTAnet Autodesk gave us the new term spacemaker and Dr. Jacobson added the concept of "pseudospace" -- "Virtual worlds are one variety of `pseudospace'. We are already capable in other, more familiar `pseudospaces' like the telephone call and the computer conference. Gradually, as we move down the list, we proceed from the common to the exotic, and end with the virtual world -- in some sense, the ultimate interface, as it subsumes all other media of communication within it. But though it is exotic in technological terms, the virtual world, as a pseudospace, is easily recognizable." AND, I'm proud to say that Dr. Jacobson's company is NOT exclusively producing YAFTs - "My [Dr. Jacobson] firm, worlDesign, Inc., designs and implements human-centered information environments in order to augment and enhance the value of existing information systems, thus making them more comfortable, attractive, and conducive to higher personal and corporate productivity." I agree with Dr. Jacobson that it is unfortunate that the people that can make this technology happen faster are sitting on the sidelines watching - aka. telephone companies. Dr. Jacobson make the humorous analogy (depending on who you are (:), "without small risk, we'd still be using IBM mainframes." Another amusing quote was, "I've heard all the hype - been responsible for some of it - not much." Audience: "Near Term Commercialization of VR Technology - The 5 & 10 Year Picture", Mr. Alan Wexelblat, Electric Blue Lighting & Art One word comes to mind, "ENERGY!". Lots of it. It was nice to finally associate a face with the name. He gave a great rousing speech about technology transfer and how this would affect VR. One of the most interesting concepts portrayed by Mr. Wexelblat was his Push/Pull concept; "Push: the drive to move technology into new locations. Conferences like this one are "push". Other examples advertising of all kinds, standards, consortia (OMG, OSF). Pull: the drive to find new technologies not locally available. Examples: product searches, evaluations, RFPs, etc. *** For successful technology transfer, pull should equal or exceed push ***" Got that? SO, quit pushing so much. Another interesting observation he made was CAT scanners. They cost BUNDLES of money but still most hospitals have them. WHY? Its called insurance companies, big business, greed. From an insurance standpoint CAT scanners are a must. Perhaps televirtual surgery (or televirtual medical experts) will become standard in every hospital due to insurance companies. Look for the angle and we can make this industry (VR) become accepted faster. As for his predictions? "Where Will We Be in 5 Years? -- I'm fairly confident of this one... We will be firmly in Stage 3: several companies will be making money off VR technology. Where Will We Be in 10 Years? Future 1 (Year 2002) - Pessimistic - A few companies are still making money, but most companies concerned with VR in the past decade have gone out of business or have been bought out. - VR is not spreading. The "natural" markets are saturated, but impedance problems and lack of pull have hampered its spread to new areas. - New essential technologies have not been developed, largely due to a lack of investment dollars. Look at windows/mice technology. Invented in the mid-60s, it `hit' bit in the mid-80s with the Macintosh, but Mac saturated its natural market and growth flattened. BUT: Windows 3.1 (with a less sophisticated version of the same technology) shipped 4 million copies on its first day. Future 2 (Year 2002) - Optimistic - Many companies are making money. Major players have VR divisions or subsidiaries. - VR is spreading as people demand new applications, and port and exchange their existing VRs to new systems. VR enjoys wide popularity in both home and office due to a continual stream of new technologies. Look at TV game systems. Pong-type games popular in the mid-70s, but the industry quickly saturated its small markets and died (went into Stage 4) by the end of that decade. The industry was revived by Nintendo/Sega." Some interesting quotes and closing comments from Mr. Wexelblat; "I cannot tell you how much money is wasted on this crap - software development is still in the dark ages!" AND, the humorous truth, "know one thing and you're a champion or expert - know many things you are a flake." I will be looking forward to his book "SOFTWHERE" coming the end of 1992. "A New Generation of Virtual Worlds - The Structure of Cyberspace", Mr. John Young, JR., Project Manager, Hughes Aircraft Company The Logitech representative I felt summarized this presentation with the simple statement of "Sterilization of VR". QUESTION PANELS The first day it was the Mr. Syracuse show. Someone from UofSyracuse in the audience kept talking about his lab (its wishes, dreams, and aspirations) and his various research. It was entertaining but not many MEATY questions were addressed. Approx. 70+% of the questions dealt with the philosophical aspects of VR. IMHO this was a waste of these peoples times - they have accomplished SO much. I would've loved to pick their brains longer and on less philosophical questions. The second day was the Alan Wexelblat show (: This man is filled with energy. He had brought about many interesting questions and answers. Much time was spent eluding to the golden grail of VR. Someone in the audience asked what for, how, and why and much of the time was spent attempting to answer this. As stated, Mr. Economy snuck out - if he sees this I'd love to find out what system he was using. Odds and Ends To answer the question "Where are the Women?" (the thread in sci.vw started on Mar 25, 91' by Robert Jacobson ) - well, there was a handful of them at this conference and one female speaker out of 23. The audience was composed of many women - approx. (big approx) 10+ women to 70+ men? Approx. 3 out of 8 exhibits at this conference were hype. Approx. (IMHO) 4 out of 23 speeches as this conference were hype - in regards that they talked about what was VR - gloves and goggles - and what applications would be neat to have. A repeated concept was the simulation loop model used. Dr. Howard used a bi-directional loop composed of "User Interface", "Information Resources", and "Information Managers". Dr. Thurman used a directed loop composed of "Patron", "Sensors", "Puppet", and "Effectors" (in that order/direction). No matter what way you model it everyone agreed that the time of this loop O(control loop) would make or break you. An interesting note/observation by the Cyberbard - is it stagnation? lack of planning and/or new research? or is everyone keeping quite? The presentation and/or work for the presentation by Dr. Zelter and Mr. Ellis were done last year. Not finding fault its just what IS going on in our field? All in all, you missed a GREAT conference. - Mike (aka. squish@hitl.washington.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and convoluted reality and should not reflect upon HITL unless it puts them in a favorable light (: