The conceptual design review process is a critical cost determining step for complex products such as ground vehicles. The use of virtual environments (VEs) in this process has become increasingly popular with the advancement of 3D visualization technologies. Important to feelings experienced by participants in a VE are two parameters: presence and immersion. Presence is defined as the subjective experience of being in one place while physically being situated in another. Immersion is a state characterized by perceiving oneself to be enveloped by, included in, and interacting in an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli. While different virtual reality (VR) devices provide different degrees of presence and immersion, the amount of each is also dependent on the individual. In this paper, a relationship among presence, immersive tendencies of individuals, and design comprehension are explored. Further, a methodology to find the best design review process subject to certain criteria is presented. The results of two experiments involving the CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment CAVE™2 are discussed and evaluated. In one case, the U.S. Army investigates the use of the CAVE as a conceptual design review environment for advanced military vehicles in a comparison test with its present method of concept presentation and review. In a second experiment, CAVE users responded to a survey to determine the potential of VEs to improve design comprehension and immersive tendencies. In both cases, positive presence and immersion results support the idea that VEs offer advantages for conceptual design reviews over more traditional methods.

Issue Section:
Technology Review
Keywords:
design engineering, design aids, military equipment, vehicles, cost optimal control
Topics:
Caves, Conceptual design, Design, Visualization, Vehicles
1.
Witmer
,
G. Bob
, and
Singer
,
J. Michael
1998
, “
Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire
,”
Presence
,
7
(
3
), pp.
225
–
240
.
2.
Heeter
,
Being C.
1992
, “
There: The Subjective Experience of Presence
,”
Presence
,
1
(
3
), pp.
262
–
271
.
3.
Freeman
,
J.
,
Avons
,
S. E.
,
Pearson
,
D. E.
,
Meddis
,
R.
, and
Ijsselsteijn
,
W. A.
2000
, “
Using Behavourial Realism to Estimate Presence: A Study of the Utility of Postural Responses to Motion-Stimuli
,”
Presence
,
9
(
2
), pp.
149
–
164
.
4.
Barfield
,
W.
,
Baird
,
Kevin M.
, and
Bjorneseth
,
J. Ove
1998
, “
Presence in Virtual Environments as a Function of Type of Input Device and Display Update Rate
,”
Displays
,
19
, pp.
91
–
98
.
5.
Prothero, J. D., and Hoffman, H. D. 1995, “Widening the Field of View Increases the Sense of Presence Within Immersive Virtual Environments,” Human Interface Technology Laboratory Technical Report R-95-4, University of Washington.
6.
Schubert, T., Regenbrecht, H., and Friedmann, F. 2000, “Real and Illusory Interaction Enhance Presence in Virtual Environments,” Presence—3rd International Workshop on Presence, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, pp. 27–28.
7.
Slater, M., Linakis, V., Usoh, M., and Kooper, R. 1996, “Immersion, Presence and Performance in Virtual Environments: An Experiment Using Tri-dimensional Chess,” ACM Virtual Reality and Software and Technology (VRST) Conference, Hong Kong.
8.
Hudson, A., Dodds, B., Curtis, J., Banerjee, A., Banerjee, P., and DeFanti, T. 1999, “Evaluation of Some Commercial VR Environments,” Industrial Virtual Reality, ASME MH-Vol. 5, 93–98.
9.
Lehner
,
V. D.
, and
Defanti
,
T. A.
1997
, “
Distributed Virtual Reality: Supporting Remote Collaboration in Vehicle Design
,”
IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl.
,
17
(
2
),
13
–
17
.
10.
Roussos, M., Gillingham, M., and Moher, T. 1998, “Evaluation of an Immersive Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment for K–12 Education,” American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
11.
Mahdjoubi
,
L.
, and
Wiltshire
,
J.
2001
, “
Towards a Framework for Evaluation of Computer Visual Simulations in Environment Design
,”
Des. Stud.
,
22
, pp.
193
–
209
.
12.
Youngblut, C., Johnson, Rob E., Nash, Sarah H., Weinclaw, Ruth A., and Will, Craig 1996, “A Review of Virtual Environment Interface Technology,” Institute for Defense Analysis, IDA Paper P-3186, Alexandria, VA.
13.
Bochenek, G. M., and Ragusa, J. M. 1999, “Comparative Testing of Virtual Environment Display Devices for Conceptual Design Reviews,” Industrial Virtual Reality, ASME MH-Vol. 5, pp. 155–162.
14.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., and DeFanti, T. A. 1993, “Surround-screen Projection-based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE™,” Proceedings: Computer Graphics International Conference, pp. 135–142.
15.
Steuer
,
J.
1992
, “
Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence
,”
J. Commun.
,
42
(
4
), pp.
73
–
93
.
Copyright © 2002
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.