At 07:00 PM 11/25/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Most of what was stated in the reply is true for
>traditional, stand-alone VR.  But,  I think VRML
>(Virtual Reality Modeling Language) is a better
>option.  With VRML, you can encorporate VR into
>a museum's existing Web-presence, in an inexpensive
>distributable way.

Indeed, but if you want to put things on gallery, you need to do something
other than incorporate it in your web prescence, although I think VRML is
going to do a lot for museums on the web, and it might be useful on a
gallery intranet too
>
>>that if you promise VR you must give people headsets
>
>If you need to be immersed, stereo-scopic lenses
>give regular computer monitors a 3D display, and
>are much, much less expensive than headsets.
>Shutter-bugs are also no more of a burden to the
>wearer than a pair of glasses.

In some audience research we did at Snibston we found that while people
liked the idea of 3D computer screens, and indeed we tried this in another
context there, they did not equate this with VR. We looked at shutterbugs
when we were considering an upgrade just before I moved on, but they didnt
seem to stand up to the everyday wear well.
>
>> A decent VR unit will cost $25,000 and
>> can only be used by one person at a time.
>
>You can get an O2 from SGI for about $6,000 (if
>you have an academic excuse) and only about $8,000
>without one.

I have played with these and I'm afraid I didn't rate them very highly

>Also, VRML can be used to create multi-user
>environments, though you are still limited by
>terminal numbers.

True
>
>> you risk side effects (nausea disorientation, temporary loss of 3D vision,
>
>This happens much less often with passive-immersion
>(like VRML).

As I work in hands-on science centres, I am very concerned about keeping the
activity content of exhibits as high as possible, so I would always go for
some form of active immersion above passive, hence the problems, but the
passive stuff does get round a lot of this.
>
>>The public also needed assistance in getting into the helmet and orienting
>
>Also, stereo-scopic lenses are simply placed on the
>head like a pair of glasses.  Most people are able
>to navigate sufficiently well by joystick, and can
>become accustomed to the interface in a few moments.

The Snibston one involved a joystick, but it wasn't navigation that was the
problem, most people were happy using the joystick, it was actual immersion
that confused them, and I think the joystick made this worse. What people
would do was keep their head absolutely still and use the joystick to turn
with. They were used to videogames where joysticks are the only method of
changing your environmental perspective and treated the VR rig in the same
way, they often took most of their experience to find you could move with
your joystick and swivel your head around to see your surroundings, which is
part of the point of VR really, so I did not deem the interface a major
success there.
>
>- It is very poor at conveying information, and  far better at impressions,
>
>This may be the case.  Few people are able to design
>3D environments that convey much meaning.  You might
>need to hire an architect.

I agree- architects are going to become increasingly important in virtual
spaces I suspect
>
>>the most modern VR still has pretty low resolution in most situations
>
>Again, SGI's are quite good at rendering realistic scenes
>(if that's what you want).  In fact, most military simulators
>use expesive SGI's.  Of course, those machines are old,
>and the costs have come down.

It is getting a lot better, but the sort of things people in museums I have
talked to about this want still seem well beyond, eg realistic medieval
streets to explore and so on - it's coming, but not there yet, we need a lot
better texture mapping for that, ideally I'd like to get some sort of force
feedback too.

I worry that if museums etc go for the stuff too quickly and with too high a
profile we could shoot ourselves in the foot and get museum VR a bad
reputation wheras it is going to be really useful and interesting if we are
pragmatic about it. People who were experiencing our VR as their first
immersion tended to come expecting Lawnmower Man, but got Nintendo circa
1990 and were dissappointed, if museums and science centres evoke the same
response as a result of premature overuse it will not be good for us. I
intend to keep an eye on developments and when something meets my
interpretive needs and visitors expectations, and is robust enough to
survive on gallery without bankrupting us, I'll go for it.




 Look at a Nintendo64: it's
>basically a super-computer for graphics and only costs $200.

It is pretty cool - they've packed a lot into one box
>
>> perhaps some customised derivative of it in the future
>
>I'd commision a Nintendo64 game of your museum...

        Could be fun! especially as I inhabit a medieval church, but the
programming costs....!
>
>> embarassing forever after that
>
        Cheers!
>
>
IAN SIMMONS

- A mind stretched by new ideas never returns to the same shape

                                        - RALPH WALDO EMERSON