Comparing Virtual Reality and Desktop Interface for Reviewing 3D CAD Models

Abstract

Use of virtual reality (VR) is considered beneficial for reviewing 3D models throughout product design. However, research on its usability in the design field is still explorative, and previous studies are often contradictory regarding the usability of VR for 3D model review. This paper argues that the usability of VR should be assessed by analysing human factors such as spatial perception and taking into consideration the complexity of the reviewed product. Hence, a comparative evaluation study has been conducted to assess spatial perception in desktop interface-based and VR-based review of 3D models of products with different levels of complexity. The results show that participants in VR more could perceive the fit of user interface elements, and estimation of the model dimensions had a lower relative error than in desktop interface. It has been found that various sensory cues are used to perceive the model size and that the employed sensory cues depend on the level of complexity. Finally, it is proposed that differences between a desktop interface and VR for reviewing models are more evident when reviewing models of higher complexity levels.

The configuration and experience mapping of an accessible VR environment for effective design reviews

“…We have not attempted to measure the level of design understanding achieved by participants, although it was noted that there were no issues in relation to this in terms of discussion or assessment during the sessions. The suggestions in the literature that VR models can provide clearer benefits in relation to high-complexity models (Horvat et al, 2019) were not applicable to the products used in our cases, although it did prove useful in the examination of surface contours; this is an issue worth considering in a comparative or more quantitative study. However, the discussion below draws on the presence ratings, participant feedback and researcher observation to highlight the main insights in terms of the VR interface and experience or participants.…”

“…Some of these are more developed than othersworkflows for porting 3D design geometry require optimization, and an accessible, dynamic VR CAD environment requires careful reconfiguration. There are significant levels of potential benefit, however, particularly in the interrogation of more complex CAD geometry (Horvat et al, 2019). Widening scope to also consider AR and MR highlights a range of other relevant researcha comprehensive reviews by Nee et al (2012) and Bottani and Vignali (2019) highlight a range of AR and MR applications in design in manufacturing settings.…”

Spatial Perception of 3D CAD Model Dimensions and Affordances in Virtual Environments

“…Results showed that the estimation of the model dimensions was enhanced when IVR was used. Furthermore, in the same study, scholars also reported that differences between a desktop interface and IVR for reviewing models were more evident for 3D CAD models of higher complexity levels [17]. In architectural design, Paes et al [24] conducted an experiment that included asking the participants to identify correct values of spatial properties (such as dimensions, proportions, and apertures) of an entrance hall of the building presented in IVE, nIVE, and physical environment.…”

“…Another finding was that participants in the IVE overestimated the depth value for all the models that were used in the experiment. The comparative study done by Horvat et al [17] assessed engineering students' spatial perception of 3D CAD models of products with different levels of complexity while reviewing them using IVR technology and conventional 2D user interface. Participants were asked to verbally estimate the size of the models' dimensions.…”

“…The advent of a new generation of IVR technology in recent years prompted an enlarging number of the studies exploring its effect on design activities across architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) disciplines. Several recent examples within engineering design domain are provided by de Casenave and Lugo [11], Horvat et al [17], Wolfartsberger [18], Lukačević et al [19]. Nevertheless, design review activities and underlying design understanding aspects for which IVR technology may be beneficial over conventional user interfaces are yet to be clarified.…”