This report summarizes results of a new study that compares user experience within the Sensics panoramic HMD to the experience inside a projection-wall virtual reality system. The study was conducted in June 2006 during an exclusive industry event held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The study reveals that on average, expert users prefer the Sensics HMD over CAVE-like system in all surveyed dimensions including image quality, field of view, and degree of immersion.
31 experts from major automotive, aerospace, defense, CAD and virtual reality companies participated in the study, most with substantial prior exposure to VR systems. Participants were invited to the 3D Lab at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and had an opportunity to comparatively experience immersive 3D models on both the Sensics piSight 150 HMD and a new projection-wall system recently installed at the lab. Various automotive, aerospace, and architectural 3D models we obtained through independent sources and were loaded on both VR systems. Participants filled Web-based surveys immediately upon completing use of both VR systems.
Key survey results include:
- On a scale of 1 through 6 where (1) is "very poor" and (6) is "excellent", 94% of participants rated the piSight field of view as (5) or (6),, 83% rated the resolution as (5) or (6), and 68% had a (5) or (6) overall impression of the Sensics HMD.
- Comparing the piSight HMD to the “CAVE” on the same 1 through 6 scale, 75% preferred the image quality in the piSight HMD to the “CAVE”, and the average score of all other dimensions of the comparison (such as field of view, degree of immersion and overall performance) favored the piSight HMD.
This report provides detailed survey results, additional information regarding test conditions, as well as commentary on the use of HMD vs. “CAVE” systems.