Gary Cheung Dissertation Y6 Alternative Representation

ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATION
Analysis of Virtual Reality for Architectural Representation
GARY CHEUNG
M.Arch Architecture
Sheffield School of Architecture
2016
I would like to give special thanks to my friends and family who have
supported me, and to the participants who contributed to my
research.
A special mention must go to Dr Chengzhi Peng, who has helped

guide me through this dissertation.
Also, a special thank you to Angela Chau who gave me moral

support and encouragement.
1
CONTENTS
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
Virtual Reality ................................................................................................................. 5
Past Developments ......................................................................................................... 5
Current Situation ............................................................................................................ 7
VR in Architecture........................................................................................................... 9
Client Interaction ............................................................................................................ 9
The Human Element...................................................................................................... 10
Illusion of Pre sence ...................................................................................................... 11
Design I ssue s ............................................................................................................... 13
AUGMENTED REALITY ............................................................................................................. 14
ALTERNATIVE REPRES ENTATION........................................................................................... 15
THE PROCESS AND DEV ELOPMENT OF (B): A GUI DED TOUR IN VR...................................... 16
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS .................................................................................................... 18
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 18
Method .......................................................................................................................... 19
Critical Posi tion ............................................................................................................ 20
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 20
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 23
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 23
Participant 1.................................................................................................................. 24
Participant 2.................................................................................................................. 25
Participant 3 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 27
Participant 5.................................................................................................................. 28
THEMES .................................................................................................................................... 30
Understanding the De sign ............................................................................................ 30
Presence ....................................................................................................................... 31
Realism ......................................................................................................................... 31
Visualising the Future ................................................................................................... 32
Focus ............................................................................................................................ 32
User Comfort ................................................................................................................ 33
VR Workflow ................................................................................................................. 34
Room for Improvement ................................................................................................. 35
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 36
Future Work .................................................................................................................. 36
Why use VR? ................................................................................................................ 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 38
2
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix 01: Interviews ............................................................................................... 40
Participant 1...................................................................................................... 40
Participant 2...................................................................................................... 42
Participant 3 and 4 ............................................................................................ 44
Participant 5...................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 02: Participant Consent Form and Information Sheet ................................... 50
Appendix 03: Conventional Media (A) ........................................................................... 56
Appendix 04: Guided Tour in VR (B) ............................................................................. 63
Appendix 05: Navigation in VR (C)................................................................................ 66
3
PREFACE
Living in an ever increasingly interconnected society, where the importance of connectivity

characterised by the rapid uptake in emerging smart phone technologies, virtual reality (VR)
has the potential to become an incredibly disruptive technology by bringing information that
is constantly flowing around us, into a temporal dimensional view that is ever changing.
Coverage in the form of smart phones, desktop, film and entertainment, education and
gaming, how can VR integrate and redefine communication in architecture?
Having first been exposed to a primitive form of VR in my architecture Part One year out as
an architectural assistant, this had formed the basis of my research into this subject matter.
Google Cardboard1 was the first VR device in such a portable format, that I had first
experienced. Something that previously was only available in theme park rides, 4D cinema,
video games was easily available to us using your everyday smartphone. It was
transforming the architectural landscape as the experimentation with virtual reality led the
firm to trial virtual reality in client meeting scenarios. This created an alternate form of
dialogue between client and the architectural profession.
This research focuses on researching alternative forms of representation, communication

and ways of immersion architects use to convey ideas, specifically looking at Virtual Reality
as a medium and its influence in the present and immediate/long term future. How can
traditional forms of representation interact with the temporal nature of visualisation? Are
there better ways to invest the time spent on drawings, better ways to utilise visualisation
and representation? How do we learn from other industries such as gaming/movie/mobile
that embrace such innovations to enhance and continually redefine their use? Does a move
towards integration with the virtual world better integrate us with other platforms outside of
architecture, such as the movie/gaming/computer software industry? Does this increasingly
immersive world cause detriment towards communication for the architectural profession?
Does this give clients a false sense of representation? Or would it completely transform the
architectural landscape with a new way to engage the audience? How can the VR be
implemented and fit into existing architectural workflows? These are some of the questions I
will raise and serve as a starting point for conversation.
1 ‘Google Cardboard – Google VR’ <https://vr.google.com/cardboard/> accessed 10 October 2016.
4
INTRODUCTION
Virtual Reality
Virtual Reality (VR) as a technology has existed for a while. Introduced in the Oxford
English Dictionary in the 1980s, it points to its early us as: ‘Virtual reality is not a computer.
We are speaking about a technology that uses computerised clothing to synthesise a shared
reality.’2 The definition of VR in its most basic form is a medium, which is interactive, spatial,
temporal and applicable in many fields. Most commonly known to introduce some sort of
peripheral such as Head Mounted Displays (HMD) that attempts to recreate a fully
immersive virtual world. This is made through stereoscopic displays, with a different picture
viewed through each eye.3 This dissertation will attempt to explore the influence of VR in
architecture with architectural applications in mind.
Past Developments
Whilst VR has existed in some form or similarity to what it is regarded as today, I will only
attempt to critically analyse the recent advances and those relevant to present VR
developments.
The early 1990s saw VR explode in popularity, with various companies focusing mainly on
the research and development market, and location-based entertainment.4 Examples of
prominent well-known companies involved in such endeavour were Sega, Disney and
General Motors, as well as others in academia and the military. VR was predicted to
transform the entertainment and industries during this time, from wearing HMDs in transport
such as buses, planes, taxis, to uses in the classroom and teaching. However, the
technology at the time could not fulfil the demands required of an immersive and compelling
VR experience. For example, there was a lack of consumer HMDs with a wide field of view,
device portability, and computer processing power to output high-frame rates and a good
level of graphical quality. In 1996, the VR industry reached a peak and then slowly
contracted with many companies going out of business by 1998.5
2 Jennifer Whyte, Virtual Reality and the Built Environment (Architectural Press 2002) 2.
3 ibid 7.
4 Jason Jerald, The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality (ACM Books 2015) 26.
5 ibid 27.
5
FIGURE 1 Developments in VR6
6 Whyte (n 2) 13.
6
The early 2000’s saw a lack of consumer interest in VR technology. VR research continued
at the education level and at corporate, government and military use with varying degrees of
success. It was not until the purchase of Oculus VR in 2014 for $42 billion by Facebook that
saw a revitalisation in efforts to bring VR back into prominence.
Current Situation
Other markets that utilise VR includes engineering, education, the military, in museums and
particularly in gaming sees the lowering cost of equipment increasingly accessible for the
markets. Prominent examples include Sony Corporation’s Project Morpheus, Valve and
HTC’s Vive, Samsung’s Gear VR and Facebook’s Oculus Rift. At the present time of writing,
most revenue that concerns the use of virtual reality is generated from the entertainment
industry.7
‘Virtual reality systems support the use of an interactive, spatial, real-time medium and are
comprised of the computer hardware and software, the input and output devices, the data
and the users. These systems are classified as immersive, non-immersive or augmented
reality.’8 These systems have advanced to a point where it may be commercially viable to
own one today.
FIGURE 2 A VR System9
7 Sky Nite, Virtual Reality Insid er: Guidebook fo r the VR Industry (1 edition, New Dimension Entertainment 2014)
1.
8 Whyte (n 2) 4.
9 By author
7
The Oculus Rift, purchased by Facebook in March of 2014 for approximately 2 billion dollars,
was released in July 2016 in the United States with a price of $599 dollars.10 It utilises a
special camera that is mounted several feet in front of the user for positional tracking. The
screen has a high refresh rate of 90 frames per second for the Head Mounted Display.
Multiple prototypes have been developed and sold, in addition to a large pool of developers
experimenting with its technology.11 These new advances VR technology could potentially
transform many industries. But will there be a market in architecture to react to such
developments? Architecture, which has so far been reluctant and slow in uptake of many
technological advances.
10 ‘Oculus Rift Website’ <https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/> accessed 24 February 2016.

11 Nite (n 7) 5.
8
VR in Architecture
The media architects use to represent building design includes renderings, rapid prototypes,
interactive models, 3D models to list a few. Until recently 3D visual renders were considered
by many in the profession as an exhaustive task to be outsourced to more proficient
generators of CGI.12 Similar concerns of scope, value for money, and concerns with
traditional hand sketching is still debated. Even today there are issues of whether the CGI
risk alienating clients and concerns of realism in visualisation that idealises architecture as
an image. Will the same problems and issues be translated to VR now that the VR
revolution is seemingly accelerating forwards?13
Virtual reality can be used as one medium amongst many. The extra layers of information
and alternative tools to represent, only add to the array of techniques architects already have
at their disposal to supplement and enhance the value of client interactions.14 The way in
which it compliments traditional workflows and interactions with the client, however is still in
transition.
Client Interaction
The author Whyte in Virtual Reality and the Built Environment argues that virtual reality is not
fully spatial, it is a 2.5D medium and subject to optical distortions, since it is inherently a
medium, using display technologies to project onto a 2D screen, although others argue it is
4D.15 A three dimensional reality with time as the additional dimension. This will be
important to consider the effects that the different dimensions may add to the perception of
data and information. The extra layer of information that is time and its effects cannot be
illustrated effectively in traditional forms of representation. This is important for building
design where the emphasis is increasingly placed on simulations of building performance in
the future, such as Post-Occupancy Evaluations.16
Currently, virtual reality is predominately used in the later stages of design, with the use of
3D models to support collaborative design work, rather than presentation of the final
12 ‘Virtual Reality Could Create a Revolution in Architectural Rendering’

<http://www.rayvatengineering.com/virtual-r eality-could-create-a-r evolution-in-architectural-rendering/>
accessed 12 October 2016.
13 ‘Are Renderings Bad for Architecture?’ (ArchDaily, 6 June 2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/383325/are-
renderings-bad-for-architecture/> accessed 3 October 2016.

14 Whyte (n 2) 8.
15 ibid 45.
16 Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘RIBA Plan of Work 2013 – Overview’
<http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/Download.aspx> accessed 13 December 2015.
9
design.17 These extra layers of information visualised can prove to be very useful when the
increasing complexity of building design necessitates new ways to visually convey data.
However, using VR to solve real world construction problems is still not yet at this stage
and may not be what it is suitable for.18
Some key advantages for the use of VR in architectural practice can be to19:
 Demonstrate technical competence – to market the skills of the organization;
 Design review – to improve the quality of the product and reduce risk
 Marketing – to sell products and services.
The Human Element
Historically, most VR content were created by engineers in the 90s.20 This was logical as
they had the appropriate skills and know-how to develop VR. However, it could be argued
that they had lacked the understanding and study of human interactions in their designs.
The way in which humans interact and perceive the everyday world is incredibly complicated.
To create a ‘virtual reality, there first needs to be an in-depth understanding in the ‘real
reality’. Engineering will prove to be essential for VR to develop the foundations of the
technology. However, the relationship between the human brain and VR needs to first be
understood. This seems perfect, for an architect to build upon this interplay, as architects
often do so in building design acting as the ‘enabler’ between client and such technologies
that require an anthropological understanding.
17 Roderick J Lawrence, Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice (Wiley-Blackwell
1987) 209–240.
18 ‘Virtual Reality for Architecture: A Beginner’s Guide’ <http://www.aecmag.com/59-featur es/1166-virtual-
reality-for-architecture-a-beginner-s-guide> accessed 12 October 2016.

19 Whyte (n 2) 74.
20 Jerald (n 4) 27.
10
Illusion of Presence
The definition of ‘Presence’ is based on a discussion that took place via the presence-l
listserv during the spring of 2000 among members of a community of scholars interested in
the presence concept.
“Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or

subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s current experience is
generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individual’s
perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience.” 21
Whereas immersion is to do with the characteristics of the technology, presence is an

internal psychological state of mind; where the user is momentarily immersed in the virtual
world without perceiving or attending to the technology, but instead the objects, characters
and experiences the technology represents.
One of the key advantages of VR technology is the level of immersion or feeling as if one is
entirely in a physical environment. The illusion of being inside the virtual world occurs when
all of a user’s “sensory modalities being congruent such that stimuli presented to that user
(ideally with no breaks in immersion such as restricted field of view, cables restricting the
HMD, and the ability to move around) behave as if those stimuli originated from real-world
objects in 3d space. 22
A common misconception of VR is the basis that to create a fully immersive situation, the
technology needs to output photorealistic rendering for users. There is however, also the
argument that an abstract experience may just as likely induce ‘presence and be a
compelling experience. Issues to consider are ‘representational fidelity’23 in which the
degree the VR experience conveys a place that is, or could be, on Earth.
21 ‘Presence Defined’ (International Society for Presence Research, 12 October 2009) <https://ispr.info/about-
presence-2/about-presence/> accessed 10 October 2016.
22 Jerald (n 4) 47.
23 ibid 51–52.
11
FIGURE 4 Diagram to show relationship of abstraction and realism24
Apathy may be related to positive experiences. Much like a sunny sky can convey happy
emotions to do with a physical building even if completely abstract and unrelated to the
structure. Reality itself is subjective in that the things people sense are not simply a
reflection of the world around us. Our brain are hardwired to predict certain things due to
repeated exposure over a human lifetime of perceiving, that influences the way we perceive
and interpret experiences.25
The power in VR that other mediums do not as vividly provide, is its ability to tell a story.
Humans have apathy with experiences if a level of ‘experiential fidelity’ is provided. This is
the degree to which the user’s personal experience matches the intended experience of the
VR content creator. Telling the user beforehand of what to expect through a VR session can
structure anticipation and expectation in a way that will increase the impact of what is
presented. Architects are adept at telling or conveying stories as communicators.26 When
combined with in the form of VR, architects can create powerful experiential stories for
clients.
24 By author
25 Jerald (n 4) 61.
26 Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘Good Design – It All Adds Up’ RIBA 2.
12
“Great designers use their aesthetic intuition to drive visceral responses that result in
positive states and high affection from users.” 27 Visceral processes are the initial reaction
that is to do with the reflexive initial reaction and perception. For example, fear of heights,
childhood anxiety, fight-or-flight responses. Visceral responses are a precursors to many
emotions and can also be induced by emotion. It is important to consider a VR experience
that can trigger these processes, in a positive way for clients. If the initial VR experience is
bad, users are unlikely to want to experience it a second time. This is to do with emotional
processing, which is the “affective aspect of consciousness that powerfully processes data,
resulting in physiological and psychological visceral and behavioural responses.” 28 To
create a positive overall end experience to be memorable, a good emotional connection
needs to be established at the end for clients to wish to use VR again.
Design Issues
The implementation of VR in practice raises a number of issues, in cognitive functions,

technical dilemmas and organisational structures required, many of which contribute to its
slow adoption until today. We can consider how representation in the virtual world can be
useful in problem solving, and how different perspective views such as exocentric and
egocentric can affect performance in viewer perception.
FIGURE 5 Egocentric vs Exocentric 29
27 Jerald (n 4) 77.
28 ibid.
29 ‘Egocentric vs Exocentric’ <http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ref19evett241012-121024050937-
phpapp02/95/spatial-mental-models-and-navigation-support-apps-for-people-who-ar e-blind-a-case-study-5-
638.jpg?cb=1351057208> accessed 24 February 2016.
13
The power of virtual reality to replicate the physical world is extremely useful. This can also
allow many different types of simulations to be done. Researchers at Stanford have found
that cognitively, people behave similarly in the virtual environment in their actions as they do
normally in the real world.30 This sets the platform for social experimentation in a controlled
lab environment, where many elements can be controlled and tested, subject to the
effectiveness of the experiment carried out.
For example, a study done creating a 150 degree field of view HMD, found that users had
increased accuracy when judge distances when walking towards a target, when having a
wider field of view. However, it would take time for the display technology to catch up as
currently, the widest FOV commercial headset offers only approximately 100 degrees field of
view. The individual pixels are still noticed when looking through the HMD as the maximum
DPI the human can see is approximately 300DPI. Higher pixel-density and higher resolution
for a wide field of view requires much more processing power that is currently on offer in
consumer VR HMDs 31.
AUGMENTED REALITY
Although not involved in this dissertation, it is important to acknowledge the importance of

Augmented Reality (AR). ‘Augmented reality is a medium in which digital information is
overlaid on the physical world that is in both spatial and temporal registration with the
physical world and that is interactive in real time.’32 There are numerous applications for AR
just as with VR however, the rapid adoption is only currently taking place due to advances in
technologies and increasing commercial viability from the prominence and accessibility,
helped in part by the smartphone revolution. AR is relevant due to its close links to VR, and
almost parallel advances in the technologies used in the uptake of HMD and display
technologies, and the technologies will likely converge at some point in the future 33.
30 Nite (n 7) 76.
31 Adi Robertson, ‘Inside USC’s Crazy Experimental VR Lab’ (The Verge, 17 September 2015)
<http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9333633/usc-institute-for-creative-technologies-virtual-reality-lab>
accessed 27 August 2016.
32 Dr Alan B Craig, Understanding Augmented Reality: Concepts and Applications (Morgan Kaufmann 2013) 44.
33 Nite (n 7) 8.
14
FIGURE 6 Mixed Reality Relationship34
ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATION
For traditional forms of 2D representation, such as plans and sections architects commonly
produced for clients, public and contractors, digital representation commonly finds itself
veering away from personal architectural style.35 In addition, digital representation offers a
temporal nature that architectural drawing cannot reproduce, in the way we experience
buildings and cities: through movement in time, sequentially. The drawing material is a
freeze-frame in time. Even physical architectural models, though permitting the audience to
move around it, enables this at a scale that give no sense of experiencing the building
design egocentrically and in time.36
It is important to establish what role traditional drawing representation can play in the future
and whether it would evolve like it did through computer renderings, CAD and other such
advances in technology such as VR. By comparing and contrasting these different elements
of representing ideas and communicating with the client, I will seek to find out a workflow
and method that will be most beneficial when using these aforementioned tools.
Although this is not a comprehensive study of human physiology and psychology, it is

important to be aware of these factors as designers, as the experience is one between
technology and human, and we need to understand the foundations of human study to be
able to utilise technology to its fullest. By better understanding human perception, the
designer can better connect the objectively created reality, by manipulating digitals bits, into
viewer minds. This can only be achieved by gaining a better understand of how humans
perceive these bits, to directly convey their design intention in a way that is positively
interpreted by the user.
34 By author, ‘Mixed Reality Diagram’.

35 Whyte (n 2) 92.
36 Susannah Hagan, Digitalia: Architecture and the Digital, the Environmental and the Avant-Garde (Routledge
2008) 5.
15
THE PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF (B): A GUIDED TOUR IN VR
A 3D model was developed in Autodesk Revit37; a building information modelling (BIM)

program for architects, MEP engineers, structural engineers, designers and contractors
developed by Autodesk Software Corporation. The model was developed as part as the
author’s architectural design project.38 The project brief is described below:
The Automotive Laboratory
Towards 2050, there is increased importance in the worldwide target to de-carbon vehicular
transport. One of the ways is the adoption of smart innovative technologies such as electro-
induction street charging as well as the use of hybrid car technology. My project is located
on Rockingham Street, Sheffield near the University of Sheffield Engineering Departments
and also in close proximity to local automotive businesses.
Creating architecture as a spectacle, as the noise, and challenging the traditional typology of
high-tech research laboratories, as highlighted by the advanced techniques used in
construction.
The new building will form part of a multitude of facilities for research and high value
engineering of automotive components.
The process of converting architect-produced 3D models for VR is complex for beginners.

Using Revit as an example to output a 3D building model. This is exported into Autodesk
3DS Max; a software developed for modelling, animation and rendering39. In 3DS Max, the
model is prepared for export into Unity, a multi-platform game engine to develop video
games for mobile, VR, desktop, Web, Console and TV platforms developed by Unity
Technologies.40
37 ‘Revit Family | BIM Software | Autodesk’ <http://www.autodesk.com/products/r evit-family/overview>

38 The author’s architectural project as part of the first year M.Arch Architecture course at the University of
Sheffield.
39 ‘3ds Max | 3D Modelling & Rendering Software | Autodesk’ <http://www.autodesk.co .uk/products/3ds-
max/overview> accessed 1 October 2016.

40 ‘Unity - Game Engine’ (Unity) <https://unity3d.com> accessed 1 October 2016.
16
A high screen refresh rate and resolution is required for immersive VR output, to minimise
motion sickness and increase presence. To achieve this, it is important to lower the
complexity of the model in 3DS Max to increase performance. This may include getting rid
of unnecessary details of small highly complex objects, in term of polygon count, which may
not be required by the designer in the final output. There is also the ability to simplify objects
in 3DS Max, to create lower polygon-count assets. This simplifies the geometry and speeds
up rendering while maintaining an acceptable image. This will lower the overall polygon
count of the model to speed up VR rendering.
The final stage of development requires export of the model into Unity which is used for VR
viewing in the Oculus Rift HMD. In here, there is flexibility in what is output on VR such as;
material selection, animation and many features traditionally associated with video games.
Most of the development and features concerning VR take place in Unity.
FIGURE 7 Timeline of Guided Tour in VR (B) using Unity 41
41 By author
17
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
Introduction
This project was chosen to investigate the growing influence of Revit BIM and Virtual Reality
in the industrial sector as the primary focus. My methodology is qualitative in nature, and the
experimental findings will be based on a sample of collected human data. An experiment
and interview process is conducted with flat images in the form of architectural drawings,
and virtual reality through the Oculus Rift CV1 Headset, investigating client meetings, and
the effects of VR architectural representation.
A focus group of 5 people will take part in a series of experiments and interviewed
afterwards. The participants are chosen to carefully reflect the intended users this
experiment is targeted towards. The people profile in this are non-architects as it is
important to consider this as different users have different levels of spatial aptitude, and
architects can generally be considered adept at understanding 2D drawings.
The experiment will be located in the University of Sheffield's Virtual and Augmented Reality
Lab in the Diamond Building. Data collection will be recorded in the form of an extensive
interview and observation by the researcher. Throughout this process, I will be acting
simultaneously as the researcher and designer of this project.
FIGURE 8 University of Sheffield, Diamond VAR Lab42
42 Photograph by author
18
Method
Participants are first introduced to the Oculus Rift CV1 HMD and briefed on any potential
risks and concerns during the experiment. An introduction to the design project is given by
the author to the user first with ‘conventional media’, in plan and section drawings, computer
generated images and photoshopped images. This is referred to and categorised as A in
this experiment.
Part B of the experiment will see participants use the Oculus Rift headset on a guided tour of
the building interior. The program was developed by the author using the Unity Game
Engine. This is a guided tour of the building in which the user controls the direction of view
by looking around whilst wearing the HMD. The guided tour lasts for 4 minutes 6 seconds.
The reason for choosing the guided tour was to replicate the real world scenario of showing
potential clients through a building site.
Part C of the experiment uses the standalone software Prospect, developed by IrisVR to
interactively view Revit, Sketchup, and OBJ files on the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive
headsets.43 This software allows the designer to view 3D architectural models in VR, and
gives users the ability to move around through an egocentric perspective. Furthermore,
there are embedded tools in this application that enable users to interactively mark down
areas of interest or concern, take photographs for later reference, ability to change the
daylighting conditions such as time and environment. This part of the experiment focuses on
the personal use of navigation controls and its effect on the participant. It is important to
note that at the time of this experiment, Prospect is still in beta development phase and
sudden or unexpected software bugs may occur.
The different media for observation are categorised as:
A – Conventional Media
B – Guided Tour in VR
C – Navigation in VR
43 ‘Virtual Reality for Architecture, Engineering, Design’ <https://www.irisvr.com/> accessed 1 October 2016.
19
Critical Position
Virtual Reality is a relatively new development for the architectural profession. Research
projects and practices are constantly being discovered and tested in various fields. It would
be difficult to predict what these technologies would mean for architecture in the future.
More in depth studies would allow for statistical claims to back up some of the themes of this
study.
The 5 interviews are treated as case studies. These are meant to be personal and capture
the complexities within each case. Rather than generalise the results, these studies attempt
to focus on personal experiences between each participant and the different media. The
participants were not previously involved in the project, and other sources of literature in this
study were found online and in hard copies.
Limitations
It is important to realise that findings are within the scope of the experiment. This is not
supposed to be a study of every aspect of VR. In addition, up to date literature and research
may be limited due to constant advances in technology. The research will focus specifically
on Virtual Reality rather than closely related Augmented Reality and Mixed-Reality.
FIGURE 9 Oculus Rift CV1 HMD44
20
FIGURE 10 Example Page from Conventional Media (A) 45
45 By author
21
FIGURE 11 Screenshot of Guided Tour in VR (B) sequence 46
FIGURE 12 Screenshot of Navigation in VR (C) in use 47
46 By author
47 By author
22
RESULTS
Introduction
The participants varied in age, areas of profession and differ in gender. This is to provide a
variety of responses to my experiment, as there would be if this experiment were to take
place targeted towards the public. However, it is important to note that due to the small
sample size, additional data collection is needed for generalisability. Recorded results will
be analysed and form a basis for future studies.
The first four participants were either first time users of VR or had limited experience
beforehand from areas of entertainment, exhibition demos or gaming. Participant 5 was a
relatively experienced user of VR.
23
Participant 1
Name: Yee Ting Chau
Gender: Female
Age: Mid 20’s
The first participant of the experiment is a female in her 20’s with no prior experience with
Virtual Reality. Her area of study is advertising at the University of Leeds.
During the interview she noted that the overall experience of B (guided tour) to be preferable
to A (conventional media) and C (navigation). “I didn’t like the first one after seeing B and C.
Because it was more difficult to understand the design. And people are more engaged with
videos, although it(A) was much better than words.” 48 Having no prior experience in reading
architectural plans and sections, she found the ability to quickly understand the design to be
effective, as there was no need to understand the conventions of plans and sections, and
spatially visualise space, skills which are normally associated and required of an architect.
Additionally, she found the ease of using VR for the guided tour to be effective as it allowed
her to concentrate on more important aspects such as the design of the building. When
judging the overall experience of the experiments, she found “it hard to control the third one.
I know (how to navigate), but it’s difficult so I find it hard to concentrate on looking around,
rather than focus instead on the design.” This could be an important comparison, as some
people may find it hard to navigate in VR, with reasons such as difficulty in learning the
controls, impatience and frustration in navigating. For example, walking into, or getting
stuck in an object49, or a reluctance towards operating controls whilst in VR.
48 Please refer to Appendix 01

24
Participant 2
Name: Joshua Jayasuriya
Gender: Male
Age: Early 20’s
The second participant is a male in his early 20’s studying Systems and Control Engineering
at the University of Sheffield. Due to time constraints, he only had time to undergo part A
and B for experimentation. His experiences through A and B were similar to the previous
participant, in which he has minimal previous exposure to VR.
There was also a general preference for VR as an overall experience. He felt the viewer
could “look around the different perspectives of what the place is, how it was inside and get
a better feel of the whole place.”50 It was easier for this participant to appreciate the design
from VR. “I don’t really see technical drawings, architectural drawings, only your explanation
made me understand each thing.”51 Issues of difficulty in understanding the architectural
drawings were voiced which may have detracted the user from understanding the design
primarily from conventional media.
The main concern however, from this participant is the comfort of using the Oculus Rift
headset. Concerns over the tightness of the headset, and lack of the ability to adjust the
tightness of the headset, made the experience less comfortable for him. In addition, his
recognition that his previous experience with 4D cinema in which he felt dizzy, and
susceptibility to motion sickness may have hampered the VR experience for him. Citing the
3D glasses used in cinemas as a target for headset improvement, he again voiced concern
over headset comfort. This is a technological issue in which the hardware to deliver the high
quality VR may still be quite heavy and bulky.

25
FIGURE 13 Participant 2 using the VR HMD52
26
Participant 3 and 4
3) Name: Yi Ching Tang (Matthew)
Gender: Male
Age: Early 20’s
4) Name: Cheuk Hang Mok (Tony)
Gender: Male
Age: Early 20’s
This interview was done in a slightly different format as both participants were only available
at a certain time. The experiment was done so that each participant experienced A,B and C
after each other. The interview for both of them were conducted concurrently.
Yi Ching Tang (Matthew) is a third year student studying Town and Regional Planning at the
University of Sheffield. Cheuk Hang Mok (Tony) studies Chemistry also at the University of
Sheffield. These two participants have had limited experience of VR before, although still
not familiar with the technology.
It was important to note that participant 3 had prior experience with reading 2D plan
drawings due to his studies. When asked which one he had a better understanding of, he
preferred the flat images. “The conventional one, because I don’t really know the use of the
blocks (objects), of the machines if you don’t introduce it.” 53 He points out the role that
conventional media is still compulsory and it is not a case that one is better than another, but
a combination of working together.
Participant 4 highlighted his interest in using the navigation in C. “I prefer the third one
because there are more functions from me. I learnt something from the third one, how to
teleport, how to interact inside.” 54 The participant particularly found it a fun experience with
the controls, and highlights that different individuals may respond differently to controls in VR.
This may be because of various factors such as how proficient they are towards computers,
if they played computer games regularly, how willing they are to learn new controls etc.

27
Participant 5
Name: Robert Stacey
Gender: Male
Robert Stacey is a Teaching Technician, at the Multidisciplinary Engineering Education

Department at the University of Sheffield. He is in charge of the Virtual and Augmented
Reality (VAR) Lab at the University of Sheffield, Diamond Building. He undergoes work with
virtual reality HMD’s on a day to day basis, including developing software in VR, testing new
equipment that arrives in the lab, and also talking and explaining about how the technology
works to visitors to the Diamond Building.
This participant will have prior knowledge and experience using VR when compared to the
other participants. In addition, he mentions his previous experience in reading architectural
plans of the Diamond Building. Therefore, this eliminated a lot of the ‘learning period’ to
understand the different media. As a result, he was much at ease understanding A, B and C.
Robert was a major proponent of using VR technology in all sorts of different fields, and
highlights many advantages using virtual reality. “With the VR you can start to understand
the depth, and how big things are and how things can fit together and whether you can
actually get the parts for your cars down to the routes, explore how the car lift. Well
obviously, I quickly noticed how the lift was the wrong way around which you might have
overlooked just from 2D drawings. I think that extra element of being able to test and look at
things, in a first person view, was quite helpful in understanding what the building was.” 55
When comparing the conventional media, to the two virtual reality experiences, Robert
comments on elements in the design that he did not notice in conventional media, such as
the car lift which was an oversight in the design of the project. This was again highlighted in
one of the polycarbonate wall partitions used.56 In the plans, this would have been hard to
read as this was done in a feint double line to denote this material. Even in the interior
renders, because of its translucent quality, this could have been easily missed. The
participant was able to notice this in B, when he noticed the translucent lining as he was
travelling close to this material.

56 Refer to Figure 14
28
Contrary to some previous participants, Robert preferred the experience of using C. “IrisVR
(C) was more immersive for me because things were coloured and I’m quite a visual person
so I can easily identify what parts were a bit more easily, but in terms of being able to quickly
see and fly through the building. I thought the Unity (B) was quite good as well, but in terms
of getting the best of both, it would be the best. In terms of nailing down issues with design,
I think IrisVR would be quite good, look at refining this area or something, whereas Unity
might be sort of your more finished product.” This ability to interact could have possibly
given him a better sense of presence, and allowed him to concentrate on the design more.
FIGURE 14 Polycarbonate Lining57
57 Screenshot of Guided Tour in VR (B) sequence
29
THEMES
There were regular themes that were brought up when comparing A, B and C which will be
analysed below. All participants found the VR experience to be enjoyable particularly the
Guided Tour, whilst they also recognised the importance of Conventional Media. This
section will primarily focus on the value of A, B and C for architectural representation. Some
key points will be analysed and discussed in the following headings:
Understanding the Design
Virtual Reality helps to clarify things, is the easiest and most understandable. This is due to
the fact that the user can experience the design at human scale, without the need to
‘imagine’ the design from traditional drawing material. Participant 1 notes that A “is hard to
visualise and requires you to imagine what it is like” 58, whereas B and C are much easier to
understand. In the context of client meetings, the ability to quickly and effective convey an
idea is extremely useful.
When asked which method the participant would use to visualise their future dream house,
the response was to use a combination, or C, as this allowed users to carefully consider the
design without a time limit. This allowed users to familiarise themselves with the design in
their own time, to then be able to confidently make design decisions.
In C, the controls are said to be ‘difficult to use’, ‘cannot see’ and ‘hard to navigate’. In this
experiment, the controls to move the users’ point of view are done using the keyboard or an
Xbox controller, subject to user preference. In mainstream VR games and current software
for architectural VR, the keyboard is still the predominant input for navigation. Participants
found this unintuitive and possibly a waste of time. “Learned helplessness”59 is the decision
that something cannot be done resulting in the person giving up due to a perceived lack of
control. Poor interaction design, in which a single poor interaction may quickly lead to
learned helplessness. Multiple failures can generalise the belief that interacting in VR is
hard. If users do not some form of positive feedback, they may lose interest, leading them to
mentally and physically eject themselves from the overall experience. It is therefore
important for intuitive navigation controls to be designed if this was an aspect of the
experience, as in the case of C.

59 Jerald (n 4) 80.
30
Presence
The participant experienced immersive and life-like content that the caused the brain and
body to react accordingly. For example, in one stage of the guided tour, the user ‘levitated’
up through an atrium to see the various floor levels. Participant 1 expressed anxiety and
sensations of fear from the height experienced. Another participant was seen reacting to a
passage in the animation when the point of view moved through a simulated object in VR. It
is therefore important to design VR that eliminates these ‘negative’ reactions to optimally
convey a positive experience.
Scales are much more noticeable because everything is 1:1. During the design of the model,
anything that is out of place for example, if the lift door was not in a correct position as one
participant noticed, is much easier to notice. Because of this, VR has the ability to reveal
costly design mistakes to a newcomer of the technology, who may not have noticed this from
the 2D drawings of A. Because of this, VR has the ability to communicate elements of the
design much more thoroughly for users, so that any feedback or errors can be commented
upon and rectified early in the project stage.
Realism
Depth cues are important for providing sense of place. In my project, these were the
machinery and human figures which provided a sense of scale and being at a remote factory
location that adds to the illusion of presence. The illusion can be broken if the world does
not feel stable due to a various factors such as latency, mis-calibration, low refresh rates,
stutter etc. Presence can be significantly reinforced if this is done correctly60. By offering a
more immersive experience in presence, participants can better understand what the author
is trying to convey.
The goal of VR is not necessarily to replicate the real world as closely as possible.
Presence does not require photorealistic rendering and there are more important presence-
inducing cues such as responsiveness of controls, animates characters, and depth cues. A
simple but stable 3D model experienced in VR can be just as compelling without relying on
photorealism as this does not necessarily increase presence.61 Being in a virtual world that
is quite abstract can be as compelling and real an experience, as a photorealistic one. By
presenting the most important stimuli well, the mind can interpret this and fill in the gaps. As
demonstrated in C, the low resolution textures, minimal lighting and rendering still allowed
60 Craig (n 33) 114.

61 Paul Zimmons and Abigail Panter, ‘The Influence of Rendering Quality on Presence And Task Performance in
a Virtual Environment’, Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2003 (IEEE Computer Society 2003) 293–294.
31
the participant to gain a good spatial awareness with his/her surroundings in VR. Although
unintentional, because of the previous positive experience in B, the design is much more
familiar, and the detail in the model is already in the memory of the user. Therefore, they do
not need to extract this information from C, where the quality of rendering is not as high.
Visualising the Future
Virtual Reality allows you to experience a passage of time/in time. In Part B of the
experiment, a passage of around 4 minutes allowed the participants to experience the
building as if they travelled to the building in the future. As Participant 2 noted, “you want to
live the experience, but virtually”. VR gives people visceral reactions. 62 Architecture can
make people feel emotion. VR does the same in this interior space experiment. In addition,
VR is much more flexible due to the fact it is virtual and not restricted by real world problems,
mostly due to the time it will take to replicate the virtual world into real reality. Whilst in the
flat-image format, unless the user has a high level of spatial aptitude, it will be hard to
visualise the design for the intended audience.
VR allows users to visualise spaces that only architects could do before. They can now
have a much bigger say in the design of the built environment. This way, decisions by
architects will be much more scrutinised, and the gap between the architectural profession
and general public would be brought closer.
Focus
The users were observed to focus on things of interest particularly objects that were in close
proximity. Colour, lights and objects of large scale were found to be focused on in particular,
as participants would do if this tour were to happen in real life. The users were also seen to
look in the direction of travel that the camera would move towards. This should be taken into
consideration when designing a tour for client interaction, where they should bring the user
to areas of importance. For future work, attention maps could be utilised that studied what
was of most interest to users.
62 Jerald (n 4) 77.
32
User Comfort
Motion sickness caused by a disparity between what is happening when looking through the
HMD and what is happening to the body, is a common adverse health effect associated with
VR. Symptoms include loss of awareness, vertigo, visual abnormalities, dizziness,
disorientation, nausea, light-headedness, drowsiness, fatigue and vomiting.63 A theory that
explains the symptoms behind motion sickness is referred to as the sensory conflict theory,64
in which passive movement creates a mismatch between information relating to orientation
and movement supplied by the visual and the vestibular systems, and it is this mismatch that
induces feelings of nausea.65
Controls need to allow acceleration to be slow and steady without any sudden, jolts or
movement in another direction, as this will lessen the conflict between the perceived
acceleration through the visual VR sensory modality, and vestibular systems of being in a
stationary resting position. In the case of C, the designer implemented a ratcheted motion
when rotating through the viewport, as this solves the problem of acceleration induced
motion sickness, since it is impossible for humans to rotate so rapidly in these ratcheted
motions.
A consistent frame rate needs to be maintained throughout the project as a low frame rate
contributes to user discomfort particularly for participant 566. In some parts of B, there was a
noticeable drop in the frame rate recorded from 60Hz to 30Hz. This is said to be noticeable
to some users and may be uncomfortable. This was caused by complexity in the scene
lighting and 3D model optimisations after an investigation. Anything below 30Hz was
particularly noticeable. Therefore, a consistent frame rate needs to be kept to reduce some
of the negative effects of latency.
It is important that the user is comfortable prior to and during the use of VR, as this may
contribute to a negative experience. Extended time using the Oculus Rift headset may
cause eye fatigue. For example, participant 2 commented on the Oculus Rift headset being
‘too tight’, and the display being ‘blurry’ whilst putting on the Oculus Rift for the first time.
Users are much more likely to not use VR again if the experience was not comfortable.
63 ‘The University of Sheffield, Faculty of Engineering, Multidisciplinary Engineering Education, General Risk
Assessment: Unique ID 008205’.
64 JT Reason and JJ Brand, Motion Sickness (Academic Press 1975) 165.
65 ‘Sensory Conflict Theory - Oxford Reference’
<http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100454911> accessed 11 October

2016.
33
VR Workflow
Throughout the development of this project, performance issues had to be kept in mind to
decrease latency in the final output. Inconsistent or drastic changes in framerate is
particularly noticeable and would break ‘presence’.
The workflow of exporting from Revit (or another choice of architectural software to generate
the 3D geometry), to 3DS Max, to Unity Game Engine is still the predominant way to create
VR architectural content. Some companies have recognised this complication and IrisVR
have developed their software to accommodate this. Part C demonstrated that basic VR
content and reproduction can still be effective. Participant 5 speaking about the tools and
features in Prospect that “IrisVR(Prospect) would be quite powerful once it is more refined.”67
This unnecessary complication in the workflow, and specialist programs and considerations
needed to prepare the model, in addition to knowledge required of VR, is what is detracting
architecture firms implementing this in-house into their architectural workflow. Currently,
most of the VR work is outsourced to other companies, which recognises this growing VR
market for architecture.68
Participant 5, having previous worked in VR development, noted that the models imported
into the building models are not optimised. For example, to prepare the Diamond Building
model, a large amount of time needs to be spent finding the sprinklers in the building, as
each individual model contained 2 million polygons per sprinkler head, and contributed to a
massive drop in performance. For comparison, the model used in part B of this experiment
contained approximately 7 million polygons. The models produced by fabricator are highly-
detailed 3D models that are not meant to be replicated in a larger architectural project model.
Preparing this final model for VR requires time to optimise the performance for VR viewing.
67Please refer to Appendix 01

68‘Virtual Reality Could Create a Revolution in Architectural Rendering’
<http://www.rayvatengineering.com/virtual-r eality-could-create-a-r evolution-in-architectural-rendering/>
34
Room for Improvement
A more intuitive interface could be employed, such that it would merge the various media
into a single VR experience.
 There could be the option to navigate at the end of the guided tour as a combination
of Part B and C from the experiment. This can be aimed at users who are more
comfortable with VR controls.
 Narration could be incorporated, possibly in tandem with a floor plan mini-map, as an

augmented aspect in VR.
 The inclusion of background music from site to augment the experience.
 Hotspots could be utilised in which information ‘pops up’ as the user directs the
centre of screen or viewpoint towards objects of interest.
 Writing and labels could be added as ‘floating’ 3D geometry in the model to better
describe spaces, rooms, area etc.
 An interface that is static in the view of the user that refers to 2D real time elements
(A). This can be found in the design of heads-up displays in 2D video games.
Many aspects of egocentric VR experience can take inspiration from the video games
industry, as well as innovations made by Facebook, who is currently at the fore-front of VR
development for social media.
35
CONCLUSION
Future Work
In order to make these results more generalizable, it is necessary to conduct additional

studies on a wider range of participants, as the age range in this experiment was limited. A
larger sample size will allow for more reliability in results. It will also be necessary to control
variables such as previous exposure to VR, to architectural drawings, gaming experience,
and other variables that may affect the participants’ experience. One improvement that could
be made to the experiment would be to develop Part C also in Unity Game Engine, so that
representation of the media would be consistent across all platforms.
Whilst there needs to be flexibility to accommodate different users, the main focus should be
on usability of the content. For example, using the Unity Game Engine to develop a guided
tour may be suitable for presentation of design, for example, in final presentations for
commission, investments, or public viewing. Whereas Prospect may be advantageous if
used to achieve more efficient design iteration cycles.
Why use VR?
Throughout the process of this research and development of VR content, the challenges and
difficulties facing architects when trying to use Virtual Reality for Architectural
Representation was personally experienced. The results from this research can be used to
inform both architects and clients when using virtual reality as a platform for conversation.
Its effectiveness as a tool in the design feedback loop forms a new dilemma for architects.
Should architects employ this new form of communication into their workflow?
Although the use of VR may not necessarily suit every architectural project, due to a variety
of factors, such as the appropriate development stage to use it in, scepticism of using VR, or
the need of specialist equipment and/or personnel etc. Some of which contribute to the
uncertainty and risk associated with adopting such technology. Taking these uncertainties
into play, the results explained in this research were meant to inform readers of the usability
of VR and is unlikely to alter drastically in the future. VR for Architecture is currently in its
infancy with much research still required. However, I believe it is only a matter of time
before the technology advances to a point where it is accessible for architects to use.
36
VR has the potential to provide an experience delivered by the architect that cannot
otherwise be achieved in conventional media. To do this, it needs users working intuitively
and in a manner that is enjoyable to use and devoid of frustration. The most important
aspect of VR development for architecture is the focus on human-centred interaction.
Quality interactions enhance user understanding of the design, what is happening, where
design flaws are, whether the architect’s vision is in-line with the clients, whilst also engaging
the client to be able to question the design content through better understanding in the
design process.
By building and reflecting on this, I hope to use the results and insight gained from my
research to further develop my skills and understanding of VR for future application, and to
at the same time, help and inform other researchers wishing to develop VR content through
this piece of writing.
FIGURE 15 Participant 5 using the VR HMD69
37
BIBLIOGRAPHY
‘3ds Max | 3D Modelling & Rendering Software | Autodesk’

<http://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/3ds-max/overview> accessed 1 October 2016
‘Are Renderings Bad for Architecture?’ (ArchDaily, 6 June 2013)

<http://www.archdaily.com/383325/are-renderings-bad-for-architecture/> accessed 3
October 2016
Author, ‘Mixed Reality Diagram’
Bimber O and Raskar R, Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds (A K
Peters, Ltd 2005)
Craig DAB, Understanding Augmented Reality: Concepts and Applications (Morgan

Kaufmann 2013)
‘Egocentric vs Exocentric’ <http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ref19evett241012-

121024050937-phpapp02/95/spatial-mental-models-and-navigation-support-apps-for-
people-who-are-blind-a-case-study-5-638.jpg?cb=1351057208> accessed 24 February 2016
Engeli M, Bits and Spaces: Architecture and Computing for Physical, Virtual, Hybrid Realms,
33 Projects by Architecture and CAAD, ETH Zurich (Birkhauser 2001)
Frascari M, From Models to Drawings: Imagination and Representation in Architecture

(Routledge 2007)
‘Google Cardboard – Google VR’ <https://vr.google.com/cardboard/> accessed 10 October

2016
Hagan S, Digitalia: Architecture and the Digital, the Environmental and the Avant-Garde
(Routledge 2008)
Jerald J, The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality (ACM Books 2015)
Kipper G and Rampolla J, Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR

(Elsevier, Inc 2013)
Lawrence RJ, Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice
(Wiley-Blackwell 1987)
Nite S, Virtual Reality Insider: Guidebook for the VR Industry (1 edition, New Dimension
Entertainment 2014)
‘Oculus Rift’
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.oculus.com/website/2016/01/riftblogpierre1.jpg> accessed
24 February 2016
‘Oculus Rift Website’ <https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/> accessed 24 February 2016
Picon A, Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions

(Birkhauser GmbH 2010)
38
‘Presence Defined’ (International Society for Presence Research, 12 October 2009)
<https://ispr.info/about-presence-2/about-presence/> accessed 10 October 2016
Reason JT and Brand JJ, Motion Sickness (Academic Press 1975)
‘Revit Family | BIM Software | Autodesk’ <http://www.autodesk.com/products/revit-

family/overview> accessed 1 October 2016
Robertson A, ‘Inside USC’s Crazy Experimental VR Lab’ (The Verge, 17 September 2015)
<http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9333633/usc-institute-for-creative-technologies-virtual-
reality-lab> accessed 27 August 2016
Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘RIBA Plan of Work 2013 – Overview’

<http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/Download.aspx> accessed 13 December 2015
——, ‘Good Design – It All Adds Up’ [2011] RIBA
‘Sensory Conflict Theory - Oxford Reference’

<http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100454911> accessed
11 October 2016
‘The University of Sheffield, Faculty of Engineering, Multidisciplinary Engineering Education,

General Risk Assessment: Unique ID 008205’
‘Unity - Game Engine’ (Unity) <https://unity3d.com> accessed 1 October 2016
‘Virtual Reality Could Create a Revolution in Architectural Rendering’

<http://www.rayvatengineering.com/virtual-reality-could-create-a-revolution-in-architectural-
rendering/> accessed 12 October 2016
‘Virtual Reality for Architecture: A Beginner’s Guide’ <http://www.aecmag.com/59-

features/1166-virtual-reality-for-architecture-a-beginner-s-guide> accessed 12 October 2016
‘Virtual Reality for Architecture, Engineering, Design’ <https://www.irisvr.com/> accessed 1

October 2016
Wang X and Tsai JJ-H, Collaborative Design in Virtual Environments (Springer 2011)
Whyte J, Virtual Reality and the Built Environment (Architectural Press 2002)
Zimmons P and Panter A, ‘The Influence of Rendering Quality on Presence And Task
Performance in a Virtual Environment’, Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2003 (IEEE
Computer Society 2003)
39
APPENDICES
Appendix 01: Interviews
Participant 1
Interview conducted on the 27th of September 2016, with Participant 1, Yee Ting Chau.
G: Gary Cheung
Y: Yee Ting Chau
G: Have you used Virtual Reality before?
Y: No.
G: Which of the three did you find most effective and felt like you got a better overall
experience?
Y: B, because I found it hard to control the third one. I know, but it’s difficult so I find it hard
to concentrate on looking around, rather than focus instead on the design. But you can mark
down something on the third one so that is good. Maybe you can show both of them.
G: Of the three, which did you think was most real, or felt like you were actually there?
Y: The second one, because you won’t experience something like the third one, like
perhaps you would walk into something or an object. And the first one is 2D, so it’s difficult
to imagine what’s inside, how it looks like in 3D.
G: Did you understand the design from A,B and C?
Y: VR is much better because you have to use your imagination on the first one.
G: What did you like from A,B and C?
Y: The second one you don’t have to navigate or anything so it’s easy to use. The easiest
and most understandable, and the third one you can interact with it. And if you’re interested
in some part of the building, you can go there and stay longer. With the first 2, you cannot.
Most importantly, you can mark down something, so that’s good.
G: What did you dislike from the three?
40
Y: I didn’t like the first one after seeing B and C. Because, it was more difficult to
understand the design. And people are more engaged with videos, although it was much
better than words, the 2D diagrams were better than words. But I feel you can just show the
client the tour, so you don’t need to work on everything.
G: Was the navigation easy to use in C?
Y: It’s okay, but I can’t see the keyboard, and I have to remember what my left and right
hand does on the controls. The arrow keys do not control the view, it does something else
so I have to remember another thing. But if you’re an expert or your client has used this
many times, they should be okay for that.
G: Which would you use if you were to imagine your future dream house?
Y: The third one because you can stay longer. If it was important to me, I would spend a
longer time looking at it. I don’t want to just walk through it, because sometimes the speed
of B is too fast, and sometimes it’s too slow. Sometimes you’re facing the wall.
G: Did you feel any discomfort such as motion sickness?
Y: When I was high I felt a bit dizzy, just a bit.
G: Did you feel tired from using the experience?
Y: No.
G: Any comments or recommendations for improvements?
Y: It’s not good for the elderly. It’s easier to understand and remember in VR, you don’t
have to think too much. Because when you are looking at the monitor, even if it is a 3D
model (on the computer) you can concentrate on details, and then think about other things.
But the 2D diagrams are still good for reference if you forget about the VR experience.
41
Participant 2
Interview conducted on the 28th of September 2016, with Participant 2, Joshua Jayasuriya.
G: Gary Cheung
J: Joshua Jayasuriya
G: Have you used VR before?
J: It’s the first time I’ve actually used this, although I’ve used this in the cinema and stuff but
then I would consider this the first time actually using the device and everything.
G: Which did you find more effective and felt like you got a better overall experience?
J: For me it would be the VR because I felt that you could look around and the different
perspectives of what the place is, how it was inside and get a better feel of the whole place.
G: Which did you feel like you understood better?
J: The nice thing about the VR was you get to see everything, but the nice thing about
conventional media if you want to see the dimensions of stuff, how specific each location is,
it’s a bit more for accuracy. VR is good for the eyes and everything but if you want to be
more technical, then I think conventional media would be more useful.
G: What did you dislike from A and B?
J: I didn’t dislike anything but if I had to say I think it depends on the individuals, for me I
didn’t really understand A because I guess I don’t really see technical drawings, architectural
drawings, only your explanation made me understand each thing. For me I got a bit dizzy,
but it also depends on the individual, because even for me when I go to the cinema in 4D, I
get a bit dizzy, but that’s a case for case basis.
G: If you were to visualise your future dream house which would you use?
J: VR, because even if they did a 3D drawing or 3D model, it’s a lot better, but with VR it’s
even better because I get to see what it’s like inside. With VR it’s more of the case of you
want to live the experience, but virtually.
G: Did you feel tired from using the system?
42
J: Not at all but I think the part that would feel the most fatigue is the eyes, but it also
depends on the person.
G: Any comments or recommendations for improvement?
J: I think this is very good for the short amount of time to build the VR. And the actual
model, if you had more time, the interior could be improved, but it’s already really nice. For
me, I had trouble adjusting the headset, adjusting the device, but that’s more to do with the
technology. I think I saw a thing with 3D glasses, but that’s just 3D glass right? That’s not
really VR, VR still needs some sort of system, but the technology is very good. Clear,
precise, and easy to use.
43
Participant 3 and 4
Interview conducted on the 28th of September 2016, with Participant 3, Yi Ching Tang
(Matthew) and Participant 4, Cheuk Hang Mok (Tony)
G: Gary Cheung
M: Yi Ching Tang (Matthew)
T: Cheuk Hang Mok (Tony)
G: Have you ever used VR before?

T: Yes, I have.
M: Me, too.
G: Where did you use it?
T: At a shopping mall.
M: At an exhibition.
G: Which part did you find effective, or feel like you got a better overall experience?
T: I prefer VR because I can move around, whereas convention is just like reading a book.
M: For me I think the VR is better too, because I got a better sense of the place, but
conventional media is still compulsory.
G: Which did you feel was more real or immersive?
T: The tour.
M: The tour.
G: Which did you feel like you understood better?
M: The conventional one, because I don’t really know the use of the blocks (objects), of the
machines if you don’t introduce it.
G: Maybe for the future, if I introduce during VR it would have been better?
M: Yeah, much better I think.
T: It would be better if you introduced it during VR.
G: What did you like from A,B and C?
M: For conventional I think it’s a more clear introduction to the design, whereas VR shows
the actual feeling.
T: Same.
G: Anything you disliked?
M: VR is dizzy if you move too much, especially flying up.
T: But the conventional is better if you imagine it.
44
G: Which was more memorable?
M: Definitely the VR.
G: Which from the VR?
M: I still prefer the tour.
T: If it was the experience from the VR, I prefer the third one because there are more
functions for me. I learnt something from the third one, how to teleport, how to interact
inside.
G: If you had a future dream house, which would you prefer to use of the three?
M: All of them.
T: Just the first two, because the third one was a new experience for me and was fun to
learn.
G: Was the interface easy to use in the third one?
T: Not really.
M: I think it’s just right.
G: Did you experience any discomfort such as motion sickness.
T: No.
M: Yes.
G: Did you feel tired from using the system? If so, what area of your body did you feel
fatigue?
M: My eyes, some eye fatigue.
T: I’m alright I think.
G: Any comments or recommendations?
M: Maybe narrate over VR.
T: Maybe introduce for both of them (A and B), maybe during VR you can play a recording
for the user.
M: Add some words in the model as in the main building, each level you have different
functions.
45
Participant 5
Interview conducted on the 5th of October 2016, with Participant 5, Robert Stacey.
G: Gary Cheung
R: Robert Stacey
G: Have you used VR before?
R: Pretty much at a daily basis as part of my job. I do a lot of stuff of actually putting stuff
together in VR and testing new equipment that we get in, things like that. And obviously
talking about it quite a bit, explaining quite a bit on how it works.
G: Which of the three did you find most effective, and felt like you got to know the design?
R: I think the 2D drawings give me an understanding of what the space might be used for.
Because it was annotated and labelled. All the rooms had a name written on them. But
when you went into VR, it wasn’t immediately clear what they were, because obviously you
had to populate the rooms, like the 2D thing. So that was a plus for the 2D drawings. With
the VR you can start to understand the depth, and how big things are and how things can fit
together and whether you can actually get the parts for your cars down to the routes, explore
how the car lift, well obviously I quickly noticed how the lift was the wrong way round which
you might have overlooked just from 2D drawings. I think that extra element of being able to
test and look at things, in a first person view, was quite helpful in understanding what the
building was. Out of the three I’m in between the Unity and IrisVR(Prospect) because the
IrisVR would be quite powerful once it is more refined.
G: Which did you think was more immersive?
R: I think the lighting that Unity provides was much better. It affected the performance quite
a bit but if IrisVR had the lighting, it would make life so much simpler. I think the more
people that use VR and starts pushing it, that will keep pushing VR in the right direction.
IrisVR was more immersive for me because things were coloured and I’m quite a visual
person so I can easily identify what parts were a bit more easily, but in terms of being able to
quickly see and fly through the building. I thought the Unity was quite good as well, but in
terms of getting the best of both, it would be the best. In terms of nailing down issues with
design, I think IrisVR would be quite good, look at refine this area or something, whereas
Unity might be sort of your more finished product. But at the same time, the way that you set
46
up your camera I was restricted to a path, whereas IrisVR I was able to go into rooms that I
don’t normally see so it was quite good for spotting niggly bits and things like that, it wasn’t
the best in terms of controls but I do play a lot of games so it might be a bit easier for me,
and I was more up for learning the controls, seeing what this or that does.
G: Which did you feel you understood better?
R: I think the 2D drawings were more technical, but they took a bit more of a grasp of the
conventions. I was already looking at floor plans of this building (Diamond Building) because
the building wasn’t here, I was already looking at floor plans of the space so I’d already seen
an architect’s drawings and things just to get a rough idea of what it would be like in this
room.
G: When you first saw these floor plans, were they hard to read?
R: Not really, I think you got a bit more information out of them than the VR but I think if you
have more time with the VR you could refine it so it had overlays and things that you could
look, so that you could end up augmenting the virtual reality, to add these sort of augmented
reality sort of aspects so you’d be able to look at a door of something, and then the door
would be able to tell you what’s in there, and look at other parts if you’d have a spec of what
robotic arm was going to be, or what a certain make of car was, and you would look at it and
it would tell you the information about that. I think you call them hotspots when you look at,
you would look at that hotspot and it would pop up with more information overlays and things.
But again that’s going to take a lot more time to refine.
G: Possibly narration over the VR then?
R: You could include narration over VR, one of the main things about VR is people don’t
include enough sound is essentially what I found as they’re more focused on their design or
what product they are trying to show off. I think sound is a major element so even just
background noise of traffic or something would have refined it and maybe you could have
overlaid your own narration saying this is the workshop floor, or here I expect this or that to
happen etc. or you could probably highlight things to go along with your narration.
G: What did you dislike from conventional media or VR?
R: The VR gave you the concept of space but you didn’t get that extra piece of inform ation,
like this is the kitchen or this is the workshop, just that extra piece of information like a map,
or a floor plan thing at the bottom of the screen to show. Then you can tie the two together,
like you are here, this floating dot around the floor plan. It’s just things that would have taken
you extra time to develop.
47
G: If you were to visualise your future dream house what would you use?
R: So I’ve employed you as an architect, and we’ve gone through a few meetings, I think VR
would be better.
G: Which of the VR would you use?
R: I think it depends on the person, people who probably don’t use computers as much, or
play games or grasp the controls as easy. But for VR just to be able to visualise the space,
and if I could fit a cupboard in there or something. Or potentially, IrisVR I could even see
them putting a measuring tape in there, where they can click one point and another and say,
oh that’s about two metres I could probably get this in there, or stuff like that. That would be
a major selling point for them. You get that bit more information. It just needs a bit more
refining.
G: And also the technology of the Oculus Rift and how that develops.
R: Yeah the technology will be coming along, like the much more companies coming in to
VR would be quite good and the paper drawings would just augment that.
G: Did you experience any discomfort such as motion sickness? If so which part?
R: I think it was more to do with the loading and jerkiness of IrisVR. I do suffer from eye
strain quite easily from VR even though I use it every day. With IrisVR because it was
unrefined, I kept glitching in and out of walls, and it kept flickering, that’s probably what’s
upset my eyes slightly. But I get that with most VR things anyway.
G: Did you notice anything in VR that you didn’t in the images or vice-versa?
R: Well considering I have already seen your design in VR before, without seeing the floor
plans properly, I already noticed the lifts was overlooked, but I think the floor plan you didn’t
have the people there, you only had that in the 2D photoshopped images, but the
polycarbonate wall I didn’t notice in the plans.
G: In the plans, it would just be drawn as two thin lines so maybe you would not know what
it was.
R: Yeah so it could just have been a railing, which you would argue you probably wouldn’t
need the railing if there was glass or polycarbonate there. So VR helped me notice that, and
a couple of other things that we might have missed.
G: Any comments or recommendations?
48
R: I think I mentioned most of them, about IrisVR could improve and incorporate hotspots
and more information into the VR experience to help people get a better understanding of
what the spaces are for. But it just comes down to time and whether the product IrisVR gets
developed, and develop that quickly. There could also be a number of software that was
more easy to use. It depends on time.
G: I guess whilst it’s not necessarily complicated, it still takes a long time to prepare a model
for VR, that’s why IrisVR is recognising the need.
R: They’re recognising the need but I don’t think they are quite fulfilling by adding too much
functionality and not focusing on the basics, which is basically what we call software feature
creep. You start off with a basic design and someone comes along and goes, oh what if we
just do this, and then they spend too much time just doing that bit but they don’t get the base.
G: With architects, I guess they read plans every day and they are acclimatised to it,
learning to read the different media.
R: Yeah at the same time, you go into your kitchen or bathroom fitters, and you are given
the spec of your room and you come and measure or whatever, and they come back and
they give you their design of where they’re going to put the shower and the bath and toilet
and things. I think sometimes they could come up with multiple way they could be laid out
but if they had like a VR representation of what they are planning, then they could potentially
get more sales because people could then look at it and go: actually that sinks looks like it
doesn’t fit in with the rest of the décor, and things like that and they might actually go for a
more expensive sink. I think stuff like that they would use a small scale thing and drag and
drop elements into it. They could quite easily use Unity for that and use a camera in the
middle of the room and map out the size of the room, and then drop in the bits of furniture or
whatever and they’re done.
49
Appendix 02: Participant Consent Form and Information Sheet
This research has been approved via The University of Sheffield School of Architecture
research ethics review process. All original consent forms have been kept in a secure
location in the author’s project main record.
50
Consent form for Participant 1
51
52
53
54
55
Appendix 03: Conventional Media (A)
These images were shown to the subjects as part (A) of the experiment.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Appendix 04: Guided Tour in VR (B)
These screenshots are some sample images that show the sequence of the Guided Tour in
VR (B) in Unity.
63
64
65
Appendix 05: Navigation in VR (C)
These screenshots are some images taken of when Participant 1 was using Prospect for
Navigation in VR (C)
66
67
68
69
70

Gary Cheung Dissertation Y6 Alternative Representation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gary Cheung Dissertation Y6 Alternative Representation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATION

Analysis of Virtual Reality for Architectural Representation

Sheffield School of Architecture

A special mention must go to Dr Chengzhi Peng, who has helped

Also, a special thank you to Angela Chau who gave me moral

Living in an ever increasingly interconnected society, where the importance of connectivity

This research focuses on researching alternative forms of representation, communication

1 ‘Google Cardboard – Google VR’ <https://vr.google.com/cardboard/> accessed 10 October 2016.

10 ‘Oculus Rift Website’ <https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/> accessed 24 February 2016.

12 ‘Virtual Reality Could Create a Revolution in Architectural Rendering’

renderings-bad-for-architecture/> accessed 3 October 2016.

<http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/Download.aspx> accessed 13 December 2015.

 Demonstrate technical competence – to market the skills of the organization;

 Marketing – to sell products and services.

The Human Element

reality-for-architecture-a-beginner-s-guide> accessed 12 October 2016.

“Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or

Whereas immersion is to do with the characteristics of the technology, presence is an

The implementation of VR in practice raises a number of issues, in cognitive functions,

FIGURE 5 Egocentric vs Exocentric 29

Although not involved in this dissertation, it is important to acknowledge the importance of

Although this is not a comprehensive study of human physiology and psychology, it is

34 By author, ‘Mixed Reality Diagram’.

A 3D model was developed in Autodesk Revit37; a building information modelling (BIM)

The Automotive Laboratory

The process of converting architect-produced 3D models for VR is complex for beginners.

37 ‘Revit Family | BIM Software | Autodesk’ <http://www.autodesk.com/products/r evit-family/overview>

max/overview> accessed 1 October 2016.

FIGURE 7 Timeline of Guided Tour in VR (B) using Unity 41

FIGURE 8 University of Sheffield, Diamond VAR Lab42

The different media for observation are categorised as:

FIGURE 9 Oculus Rift CV1 HMD44

FIGURE 12 Screenshot of Navigation in VR (C) in use 47

Name: Yee Ting Chau

Age: Mid 20’s

48 Please refer to Appendix 01

Name: Joshua Jayasuriya

Age: Early 20’s

50 Please refer to Appendix 01

3) Name: Yi Ching Tang (Matthew)

Age: Early 20’s

4) Name: Cheuk Hang Mok (Tony)

Age: Early 20’s

53 Please refer to Appendix 01

Name: Robert Stacey

Robert Stacey is a Teaching Technician, at the Multidisciplinary Engineering Education

55 Please refer to Appendix 01

FIGURE 14 Polycarbonate Lining57

57 Screenshot of Guided Tour in VR (B) sequence

Understanding the Design

58 Please refer to Appendix 01

60 Craig (n 33) 114.

Visualising the Future

<http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100454911> accessed 11 October

67Please refer to Appendix 01

 Narration could be incorporated, possibly in tandem with a floor plan mini-map, as an

 The inclusion of background music from site to augment the experience.

In order to make these results more generalizable, it is necessary to conduct additional

Why use VR?

FIGURE 15 Participant 5 using the VR HMD69

‘3ds Max | 3D Modelling & Rendering Software | Autodesk’

‘Are Renderings Bad for Architecture?’ (ArchDaily, 6 June 2013)

Author, ‘Mixed Reality Diagram’