Best practices for cross-platform virtual reality development

Virtual Reality (VR) simulations have become a major component of the US Military and commercial training. VR is an attractive training method because it is readily available at a lower cost than traditional training methods. This has led to a staggering increase in demand for VR technology and research. To meet this demand, game engines such as Unity3D and Unreal have made substantial efforts to support various forms of VR, including the HTC Vive, smartphone-enabled devices like the GearVR, and with appropriate plugins, even fully-immersive Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVETM) systems. Because of this hardware diversity, there is a need to develop VR applications that can operate on several systems, also known as cross-platform development. The goal in developing applications for all these types of systems is to create a consistent user experience across the devices. It is challenging to maintain this consistent user experience, because many VR devices have fundamental differences. Research has begun to explore ways of developing one application for multiple system. The Virtual Reality Applications Center (VRAC) developed a VR football “Game Day” simulation that was deployed to three devices: CAVETM, Oculus Rift HMD and a mobile HMD. Development of this application presented many learning opportunities regarding cross-platform development. There is no single approach to achieving consistency across VR systems, but the authors hope to disseminate these best practices in cross-platform VR development through the game day application example. This research will help the US Military develop applications to be deployed across many VR systems.

[1]  B. Beek,et al.  An assessment of the technology of automatic speech recognition for military applications , 1977 .

[2]  Eliot Winer,et al.  Comparison of a Virtual Game-Day Experience on Varying Devices , 2017 .

[3]  Tommy Strandvall,et al.  Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research , 2009, INTERACT.

[4]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  Evaluating Display Fidelity and Interaction Fidelity in a Virtual Reality Game , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[5]  Maria del Carmen Juan Lizandra,et al.  Comparison of the Levels of Presence and Anxiety in an Acrophobic Environment Viewed via HMD or CAVE , 2009, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[6]  Perry McDowell,et al.  Delta3D: A Complete Open Source Game and Simulation Engine for Building Military Training Systems , 2006 .

[7]  C. Borst,et al.  Overview and Assessment of Unity Toolkits for Cave Automatic Virtual Environments and Wand Interaction , 2015 .

[8]  M. Krijn,et al.  Treatment of acrophobia in virtual reality: the role of immersion and presence. , 2004, Behaviour research and therapy.

[9]  Eliot Winer,et al.  Three-Dimensional Path Planning of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Using Particle Swarm Optimization , 2006 .

[10]  Carolina Cruz-Neira,et al.  VR Juggler: a virtual platform for virtual reality application development , 2001, Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001.

[11]  David Kushner Virtual reality's moment , 2014, IEEE Spectrum.

[12]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  An evaluation of spatial presence, social presence, and interactions with various 3D displays , 2016, CASA.

[13]  Dieter Fritsch,et al.  VISUALISATION USING GAME ENGINES , 2004 .

[14]  Frederic D. McKenzie,et al.  Training in Peacekeeping Operations Using Virtual Environments , 2004, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[15]  Carolina Cruz-Neira,et al.  Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE , 2023 .