Hmds, Caves & Chameleon: a Human-Centric Analysis of Interaction in Virtual Space

HMDs, Caves & Chameleon: A Human-Centric Analysis of Interaction in Virtual Space

tied to what is displayed to the user, such which we contrast the various approaches. It is systems also typically permit some means of obvious that other concerns such as cost, input, such as a dataglove [21] or some other speed, fidelity, space requirements, etc. affect high degree of freedom input to support inter- the choice of which technology to adopt_We action with the displayed virtual world. will touch on some of these, but our overall As the art has progressed, alternative tech- objective is more modest: to shed some light nical approaches to VR have emerged. Of on those areas that we feel we best under- these, we distinguish among three: stand.

• Head mounted VR: systems as described briefly above, where one typically has a Head Mounted Display head mounted wide view stereo display (HMD)VR coupled with head tracking, and some In HMD VR, the user '~vears" a stereo display, other means of input to support interac- much like a pair of glasses that provides a view tion. into the virtual world. The physical form of • Cave based VI~ where some or all of the these "glasses" can range from something on walls of a room are rear-projection the scale of a motorcycle helmet to a pair of Figure I : Modern inexpensiveHMD: The General Reality stereo displays.The user wears glasses to sunglasses. Figure I illustrates one example of CE-2OOW.(Photo:General Reality Carp.) See page 104 enable viewing the stereo images, and a HMD. ~or color Image. there is a head tracking mechanism to There is a great variety in display quality. control what is projected (i.e., the view) The goal in the technology is to provide the depending on where the viewer is widest field of view at the highest quality and Bill Buxton and George W. Fitzrnaufice located and looking. In addition, there is with the least weight and at a reasonable cost. AliaslWavefront Inc. some mechanism for interacting with The reader is referred to Neale [12] for a what is seen. reasonably up-to-date survey of HMD tech- Abstract • Chameleon type VR: which involves a hand- nology. There are a various approaches to imple- held, or hand moved, display whose posi- There exist a range of high degree of menting virtual reality (VR) systems. The head lion and orientation are tracked in order freedom (HDOF) input devices that can be mounted display (HMD) and Cave approaches to determine what appears on it. used in interaction with such systems. An are two of the best known. In this paper, we Furthermore, the display enables interac- overall directory of sources to input devices discuss such approaches from the perspective tion with what it is showing. can be found in Buxton [3]. Furthermore, a of the types of interaction that they afford. Each of these types of VR system is number of classes of HDOF technoloties are Our analysis looks at interaction from three discussed in more detail below, but the point discussed in the contribution of 5humin Zhai perspectives: solo interaction, collaborative of this paper is not to provide a history or [20] in this special issue. Because of the typical interaction in the same physical space and enumeration of VR systems, per se. mobility of the user (compared to desktop remote collaboration. From this analysis VR, while expensive and still relatively new, systems), however, most HWID systems use emerges a basic taxonomy that is intended to is a powerful technology. It is being applied in a what Zhai calls a flying mouse class of device, help systems designers make choices that range of contexts ranging from entertainment often in conjunction with a dataglove type better match their implementation with the to automotive design. But if one is going to controller. In some cases, each hand is instru- needs of their application and users. engage the technology, then what path to mented in order to support bimanual interac- follow, and why? What are the relevant dimen- tion. Introduction sions? What are the pros and cons of each The issue with virtually all HMDs is that Immersive virtual reality (VR) was first approach? the eyes are covered by the display. suggested -- as were so many other things -- Providing some vocabulary and a frame- Consequently, one sees the virtual world at by Ivan Sutherland in 1965 [17]. Practical work in order to answer and address such the expense of the physical one. Users cannot working systems have now been with us for questions is what motivates this brief discus- directly see their hands nor the devices that over a decade and have been written about sion paper.After introducing each of the three they are controlling. Similarly, they cannot extensively (e.g., Rheingold, 1991) [15]. If one classes of VR systems, we discuss them in directly see objects or other people who are includes the early work of Krueger (1983) terms of their ability to support three types of in their immediate physical environment. [I I], they go back even further. The best interaction: Therefore, in order to function, some repre- known approach to VR is that of the head • Solo: where there is only one person sentation of such entities Irrom the physical mounted display (HMD) coupled with head interacting in the virtual space. world must appear in the virtual one. In order tracking. With such systems, one typically is • Same place collaboration: where there is to use my hands, I most likely must see a presented with a stereo binocular view of the more than one user interacting in the representation of them. Likewise, in order co virtual world, often with stereo audio. By virtual space, but they are physically situ- avoid bumping into a table, I must see a repre- virtue of tracking the viewing position (the ated in the same location. sentation of i~ and to avoid bumping into you, | head) and orientation in the physical world, the • Different place collaboration: where must see an avatar, or some other representa- view and perspective of the virtual are consis- there is more than one user interacting tion of you. tent with what one would experience in the in the virtual space, but they are situated In collaborative work a significant observa- physical world from the same actions. in different physical locations. tion that emerges from this is that, visually, In addition to tracking viewpoint, which is These are the key dimensions according to HMDVR treats those in the same and those in

Computer Graphics November19c~ 69 virtual world. However, the way that we can Tracked share the scene has some distinct differences & from HMDVR. Remember that what is Linked displayed is determined by head tracking. If we are both in the Cave, we both are viewing the I same displays, preventing us from each having our own "point of view" (While we can both look at different things and different directions, we both do so as if from the perspective of the current location of the head tracker.) So the good news is, in the Cave we really are // presented with the same view. The bad news Figure 3: Fakespace BOOM3C boom mounted display is, you have to see it from my location, or vice I i (Photo: Fakespace, Inc.) versa. Loose Linked & Mobile In remote collaboration, where two Caves tion is tracked. In addition, it shows that the are linked, this constraint is softened since Figure 2: Schematic showing the relationship among the hands are on the "far" side of the display. each Cave can have a unique view, but eyes, hands and display in HMD Style VR. Finally, it shows that all three are physically everyone within a single Cave must share the coupled, and mobile within physical space. same one. But the advantage of being able to see each other in the context of the virtual remote physical spaces in the same way (some According to these criteria, and for the scene is lost when collaborating across would say equally poorly, since visually there is purposes of this paper, boom-mounted multiple Caves. In remote collaboration one no advantage to "being there" physically). displays, such as illustrated in Figure 3, are a must resort to the same techniques used in There is an important caveat to raise at variation on HMDs, as opposed to a separate HMD VR -- such as the use of avatars or this juncture. Some researchers have found a category (in contrast to the analysis of Cruz- some other representation -- in order to see way around the problem of seeing the phys- Neira, Sandin, DeFanti, Kenyon and Hart, 1992) one's remote collaborators within the virtual ical world (such as objects, their hands, tools [41. space. or other people) while wearing HMDs. One Finally, there is one potential problem that approach is to mount one or more video Caves is unique to same location collaboration in cameras onto the HMD and feed the signals A significantly different approach to VR, called Caves. In the everyday world, you and I may to the displays [19, 2, 16].The cameras func- Cave VR, was introduced by Cruz-Neira, find ourselves on opposite sides of an object tion as surrogate eyes providing a view into Sandin, DeFanti, Kenyon and Hart in 1992 [4]. of interest or discussion. But what happens in the physical world onto which is superim- In this class of VR, the user functions within a a Cave if the object of interest lies within the posed a computer generated view of the room on which one or more of the surfaces confines of the physical walls of the Cave? If virtual world.The result is much like a head's (walls, floor, ceiling ...) is the display.An ideal- we are facing each other in a Cave with a up display, and this approach to VR falls into ized representation of a Cave is shown in the general category of augmented reality Figure 4. This shows four sides of a six-sided (AR), since it enables the computer to Cave. In a Cave, each of the displays is "tiled" augment our view of the physical world with in that together they provide a seamless omni- additional information. See [9] for an example directional view of the virtual scene. j i~ ~• J of augmented reality and its application. Furthermore, the displays are ideally stereo, One important application of this tech- and the operator views them through a set of nology is in remote collaboration. As an lightweight transparent shutter glasses. The example, take the case of a technician who user's head position is tracked within the Cave needs guidance to repair a complex piece of so that what is displayed preserves proper equipment from an expert who is not physi- perspective, etc., in adapting to movements cally there.Through the cameras mounted on and change of location of gaze.That is, percep- the technician's HMD, the expert can tually, the user sees the virtual scene in a remotely see what the technician is looking manner consistent with if it were real.And, as at. Conversely, using VR technology, the anyone who has seen a stereo movie knows, expert can point and indicate to the techni- the objects in the virtual scene do not just cian what to do.The guidance of the expert is appear on the Cave walls and beyond. They superimposed on the technician's view of the can appear to enter into the physical space of the Cave itself, where the user can interact equipment in the HMD, thereby enabling the Figure 4: Schematic of an idealized Cave VR system.Tiled with them directly. repair to proceed. rear projection stereo images appear on up to six faces As with HMD VR, manual interaction Clearly the ability to support AR is an of the room in which the operator works. In prance, within the Cave is typically accomplished with important attribute of HMD VR. However, most Caves have three to four faces with projections. a HDOF device such as a "flying mouse" since it is not in the mainstream of HMDVR, in (Image from: Cruz-Neira, Sandin, DeFanti, Kenyon and (sometimes coupled with speech recognition), the bulk the discussion which follows we will Hart, 1992). assume that this is not in place. in order to enable the operator to remain mobile within the space. A simple schematic of HMD systems is virtual object in between us, neither of us will One area where Caves differ from HMD shown in Figure 2. It represents the relation- be able to see the object as we are each VR is that, since the glasses are transparent, ship among the eyes, hands and display. First, it blocking the screen on which it is being one can see the physical as well as the virtual shows that the eyes and display are both projected for the other person. Let us call this world. Consequently, if you and I are both in tightly physically coupled, and that their posi- the "shadow effect" the space, we can see each other as well as the

70 November 1998 Computer Graphics Tmcl~d !

I i Loose I_Jm~d & Mobile

Figure 5: 5chemal~cshowing rela~Janshi~among the e)m.s, hands and display in Cave style VR Figure 6:The ImmersaDesk VIt System_A large format mar-pm]ec'aonpat stereo display (Photo:Electronic As with HMD VR, in Figure 5 we charac- V/sual/zat/onLaboratory at the University of Illinois at terize Cave VR by means of a simple Ch/cago) See page 104 for color Image. schemaTJc. Here we illustrate that the eyes and hands are loosely coupled and mobile, and that Chameleon system, the image appeared on a the display is anchored in a fixed position. small display held in the palm of the hand. In Furthermore, it shows that the head is tracked this case, what appeared on the screen was and that the hands are visible and located determined by tracking the position of the between the display and the eye. display, rather than the head of the user. Fitting into this characterization, are a One way to think about the Chameleon number of other systems, which might there- approach is as a magnifying glass that looks . ~ .i.. i~:i? ~:.~.:":ii!!!g. . i< • " '. %:4~ fore be considered "degenerate Caves:' One onto a virtual scene, rather than the physical example would be large format projection world. And while the display is small, and • . ~::, . ~,,~.., ..'-.~r- • " ":"~:.:, ,:: ;4 . " • ,~ii ~j~ displays such as the ImmersaDesk shown in certainly does not give the wide angle view .. " ,~.:,, ,.:...~~.:.. :~ , :,:,:..,~,~'!:,!~i~ Figure 6, developed at the Electronic found with the Cave approach, the scene is ~,..:~... ,/ ... ~i71~'~. • :": ::':!~ Visualization Laboratory at the University of easily browsed by moving the lightweight :...:. ..: .., , ...., ..,.: . ~~~j'+"" +,. . ~ Illinois at Chicago (Czernuszenko, Pope, Sandin, :...:~:: :: . :~.~ ..... :..:. .. , , .; , • ...... ~,..:~: ~;p display, as shown in the bottom image of :..-: ,~',". ~ ~. ~,.~ 8!':":~. • :..":" "# -~ • '. :i~:.! :~.,:.[...~ii," .. "....'~i;: -'., DeFand, Dawe and Brown, 1997) [5].This is Figure B. essentially a small one-sided Cave. This movement of the display actually takes Another example would be whatWare and advantage of a subtle but powerful effect in Boo~ [18] called fish tankVR.These are typi- human visual perception.With respect to visual cally CRT systems which incorporate head- perception, Newton was wrong about the Ngure 7: The ~ub~ S~m: A ~ag 3-~1~ Cave [6, 7]. tracking, and present a perspectJve view (often equivalence of relative morion.That is, moving See pale lOS for color |ma~. not stereo), based on the user's head posiUon. a scene on a fixed display is not the same as Such systems can be thought of as very small moving a display over a stationary scene. The format one-sided Caves (tunnels?) with a stereo display been used with this class of reason is rooted in the persistence of images system, although one can imagine achieving this consequently limited field of view and range of on the retina, formally known as the "Parks mobility of the user. using the same kind of shuttered glasses Effect" [I 3]. Much like moving the cursor often employed in Cave systems. Actually, small format caves have been built, leaves a visible trail on a screen, moving the showing that you don't have to be able co walk Like Cave systems, in Chameleon-like VR, Chameleon display across the field of vision, one has an unobstructed view of people and around in a cave for the technology to be of and updating the view with the motion, can value.The Cubby system developed at the objects in the physical world. However, unlike leave an image of the larger scene on the the Cave but as with I-IHDVR, in collaborating Technical University of Delf~ in the Netherlands retina. Hence, if the display can move, the effec- is one such example [6, 7]. with others in the same physical space, each tive size of the virtual display need not be the user has their own view. And yer~ ic is easy to Finally, flight and driving simulators, which same as the physical size. (If you remain have a mechanism for sharing a view without involve a vehicle in a space (often only confused, think about the effect of drawing a partially) surrounded by rear projection disorienting the other viewers, since orienta- pattern on a wall by quickly moving a laser tion is mainly determined by one's orientation screens, would also fall into this category.The pointer. Here, a whole pattern is displayed even display is often nor stereo, and it may not be in physical space. (Contrast this with switching though only one point is illuminated at any views in either Cave or I-IMDVR.) flat_And the user is typically not mobile, being given rime.The image is in your eye, not on the confined to the vehicle. However, the basic On the other hand, Chameleon VR shares wall. Such is the human visual perceptual the same problem as both HMD and Cave VR relationship among the view, hands and display system, and Chameleon-likeVR can take advan- are consistent with the Cave approach. in establishing a sense of presence of others in tage of it.) collaborarion involving different physical loca- Interaction with this class of display tends tions. Chameleon Style VR to be based on devices such as buccons or (as The third and least well known approach toVR As with the ocher techniques, we can char- seen in the next example) a touch screen acterize Chameleon-like VR schematically. that we will discuss was introduced by coupled directly with the display.That is to say, Fitzmaurice (1993) in his Chameleon system. Figure 9 illustrates the right coupling of the the display device serves for both input and hand(s) with the display, as well as the tracking This can be thought of as handheld VR. In the output. In no cases, to our knowledge, has

Computer Graphics November 1998 71 Tracked i I Linked i t

I D t Loose ~d & Mobile

Figure 10:Art+Com virtual car display.This system is Figure 9: Schematic showing relationship among the eyes, essentially a larger format display version of Chameleon. hands and display in Chameleon style VR. A counter-balanced boom constrains the display Figure 8: Chameleon Palm-held VR System.A monocular movement as well as supports its weight. (Photo: image is presented on a palm-sized portable display.The taken the Chameleon-like approach. For our Art+Com). See page 105 for color image. display has position and orientation tracking so what is purposes, one of the most interesting was displayed is determined by the display position. (It is like a developed by Art+Corn (1998) [I] to enable balanced boom. While mechanically not unlike virtual magnifying glass).The display also incorporates the public to view a virtual version of the new the Fakespace boom seen previously in Figure some manual controls. (Photo from Fitzmaurice, 1993) Daimler-BenzA-class vehicle at the IAA motor 3, conceptually this system is quite distinct. It See page 104 for color image. show in Frankfurt, September of 1997. This is very much falls into the Chameleon-class of VR illustrated in Figure 10. by virtue of the relationship of the hands to of the display, and the mobility (modulo any In this example, the display was larger than the display, and the user's simultaneous visi- tethering) of all three. in the original Chameleon system. Rather than bility and awareness of the surrounding phys- There have been other examples that have handheld, it was supported by a counter- ical space. In this example, the system was on a scale to enable the car to be viewed on a I:1 scale. Solo Same-Place Different-Place Support The user could walk through and view the Collaboration Collaboration forAR virtual car with the help of a fiat screen (LCD) HMD • see virtual space • see from per- • see from per- yes, if HMD attached to a swivel arm. What this example only sonal viewpoint sonal viewpoint coupled with video demonstrates is how the technology for inter- camera(s) for • hands and tools • akward shared • akward shared acting with the virtual space can be integrated example.Then local by virtual repre- viewpoint viewpoint objects, hands & seamlessly into the display. This is shown in sentation only • only see others as • same place and people visible. Figure I I, which illustrates how a touch screen (but see support avatar, for different place forAR column on the display was used to select things such expemple (but see collaborators as the color of the vehicle or fabric of the support forAR treated the same, upholstery. column) as avatars Finally, like HMDs, Chameleon-like systems Cave • see virtual and • see from view- • only one view- have the ability to support augmented reality. physical space point of another point per site In his paper, for example, Fitzmaurice [10] (but possibly • hands and tools • only see remote showed how location tracking not only told different view visible participants as direction) the device where it was physically, but also avatars, for relative to other devices, or people. Brought • see others in example physical space close to a map, for example, it could give additional information about the region that it was • potential shadow effect blocking close to. Or, brought beside a complex piece of view of object of machinery, by being aware of the fact, it could interest give valuable information about how to use or repair the device. Some researchers, Rekimoto [14], for Chameleon • see virtual and • see from • see from yes, with or physical space personal personal without video example, have augmented Chameleon-like viewpoint viewpoint devices further and added video cameras in a • hands and tools camera to augment visible • potential non- • only see remote display manner similar to those discussed in the section disruptive shared participants as on HMDs. Using this approach, the computer- viewing avatars, for generated information can, likewise, be superim- example • see others in posed over a view of the physical world, with physical space the same benefits discussed with HMDs.

Table I: Properties of VR systems for various numbers and distribution of users.

72 November 1998 Computer Graphics Rgure I h Art+Cam VR Control:Note that the displaV in the previousphoto is a touch screen that enables the operator to interact with the image. (Photo:Art+Cam).See page I05 for color image,

Summary and Acknowledgments 10. Fitzmaurice, G.W."Situated Information Conclusions The research underlying this paper has been Spaces and Spatially Aware Palmtop supported by AliaslWavefront, Inc. and Silicon Computers:' Communications of the ACM, We have surveyed three distinct approaches to Graphics, Inc. This support is gratefully 36(7), 1993, pp. 38-49. VR. We have attempted to describe each in acknowledged. Also thanks to Thomas Baudel I I. Krueger, Hyron,W.A~ficial Reality. Reading: terms of properties that might influence their and Michael Mills for valuable suggestions and Addison-Wesley, 1983. suitability for different types of applications. In help. 12. Neale, D. "Head-Mounted Displays: particular, we have emphasized properties that Product Reviews and Related Design emerge in different forms of collaboration. Considerations," Hypermedia Technical These are summarized in Table I. References Report HCIL-98-02, Human-Computer Obviously, other factors will also affect I. ART+COH (1998), http:llwww. Interaction Laboratory, Department of what technology is adopted. Cost is always an artcom.delprojectslvrf/welcome.en. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia issue. So is the quesrion of the amount of 2. Azuma, R. and G. Bishop. "'Improving s~atic Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-01 I 8, 1998, space, and any specialized environments and dynamic registration in an optical see- htrp://hci.ise.vt.edul-hcillhtr/HCIL- required. And even within type, there is a through HHD" Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 94, 98-021HClL-98-O2.html. broad range of variation, in image quality, 1994, pp. 197-204. 13. Parks, T.E. "Post Retinal Visual Storage" responsiveness, etc. 3. Buxton, W. A Directory of Sources to Input American Journal of Psychology, 78, 1965, pp. But in many cases, it may be that more Technologies, 1998, http:l/www.dgp. 145-147. global human factors are most important. By utoronto.ca/peoplelBillBuxtonllnput 14. Rekimoto, J. "Tilting Operations for Small way of example, consider an automotive design Sources.html Screen Interfaces" Proceedings of UIST'96, studio that wants to use VR technology for 4. Cruz-Neira, C., D.J. Sandin, T.A. DeFanti, R. 1996, pp. 167-168. design reviews. Cave technology can and has V. Kenyon and J. C. Hate"The CAVE:Audio 15. Rheingold, H. Virtual Reality, N.Y.: Summit, been used to good effecT. However, the quality Visual Experience Automatic Virtual 1991. has to be balanced with the fact that there Environment," Communications of the ACJvl, 16. State, A., G. Hirota, D.T. Chen,W.E Gan-ett typically isn't a Cave in every studio. Rather, the 35(6), 1992, pp. 65-72. and MJ~. Livingston. "Superior augmented Cave is most commonly a shared resource in a 5. Czernuszenko, M., D. Pape, D. Sandin, T. reality registr-adon by integrating landmark different part of the building. It has to be DeFanti, G. L Dawe and M. D. Brown. "The tracking and magnetic tracking," booked and data transferred and set up.While ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall Projection- Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96, 1996, pp. this structure can support formal reviews, it Based Virtual Reality Displays," Computer 429-'!38. does not lend itself to casual or spontaneous Graphics 31 (2) 1997, pp. 46-49. 17. Sutherland, I. "The Ultimate Display," reviews by management, customers or 6. Djajadiningrar, J.P. "Cubby:.What You See is Proceedings oflFIP 65, Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 506- designers.That is to say, social issues might be Where You Act," Ph.D. Thesis, Technical 508, 582-583. the determining factor in choosing something University of Delft, The Nethedands, 1998, 18. Ware, C., K. Arthur and K. Booth_"Fish like a Chameleon VR system, even if the ~idelity http:llwww.io.tudelft.nl./research/ rank virtual reality" Proceedings of InterCHI does not match that of the a/temat/ve approaches. I DEATE/cubby/cubby.html. '93, 1993, pp. 37-42. VR technologies are expensive and not well 7. Djajadiningrat, J.P., G.J.F. Smets and C.J. 19. Yoo, T.S., and T.M. Olano. Instant Hole understood. In our opinion, there is no "right Overbeeke."CuhbT. a multiscreen movement (Windows onto Reality), University of approach" without a careful analysis of user, parallax display for direct manual manipula- North Carolina at Chapel Hill cask and context (physical and social). tion:' Displays, 17, 1997, pp. 191 - 197. Technical Report TR-93-027, 1993, Hopefully, the concepts outlined in this paper 8. Fakespace, Inc., 241 Polaris Ave. Mountain h ttp:llwww.cs.unc.edulResearchl make some progress in paving the path to an View, CA 94043, http:/Iwww. graphics/pubs.html. understanding of the issues that will support fakespace.coml. 20. Zhai, S. "User Performance in Relation to such decisions. In the meantime, the authors 9. Feiner, S., B. Haclntyre and D. Seligmann. 3D Input Devices" To appear, Computer welcome comments, suggestions and ques- "Knowledge-Based Augmented Reality," Graphics 32(4) November 1998. tions. Communicau'0ns of the ACM, 36(7), 1993, pp. 21. Zimmerman, T.G., J. Lanier, C. Blanchard, S. 53-62.

Computer GrIphics November 199B 73 Bryson and Y. Harvill. A Hand Gesture Interface Device, Proceedings of CHI+GI '87, 1987, pp. 189-192.

Bill Buxton is Chief Scientist of AliasJWavefront Inc. and Silicon Graphics, Inc. He is also a Professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. His interest in interaction grew out of his previous life, where he was involved in designing and playing electro- acoustic musical instruments, and was refined through a long association with Xerox PARC.

Bill Buxton & GeorgeW. Fitzmaurice AliaslWavefront Inc. Toronto, Ontario Emaih {buxton, gl}@aw.sgi.com Web: http://www.dgp.utoronto.ca/people/ BillBuxton/billbuxton.html

74 November1998 Computer Graphics FROM THE EDITOR

Explore the World of Computer Gaming and Computer Graphics

Gordon Cameron performing minor miracles to achieve effects SOFTIMAGE, Inc. that today may look somewhat dated bur in their time were bleeding edge, whilst still The February 1997 issue of Computer Graphics managing to keep in mind that most impor- contained a focus (expertly guest edited by tant, yet too-oft neglected, aspect --- game- Mike Milne) on the entertainment industry, play. but we chose to save an important area of James has done a superb job in gathering this industry for later investigation. It's with together a collection of thoughtful and per- great pleasure that I present that focus on the sonalarticles from both past and present computer games industry in this May 1998 which together form a snapshot of the world issue of Computer Graphics. of computer gaming and computer graphics. Back in the early 'B0s when I was still My thanks go out to all those who con- in school, I was enthusiastically coding away tributed, and especially to James for working on a variety of early machines such as the under extremely tight deadlines. Sinclair ZX8 I, Oric- I, Atari 800XL and Atari ST. At the same time, I spent a great deal of my hard-earned paper-round cash on games for these machines, so it was with great Also, once again we have a tremendous excitement that I recently discovered an series of columns. If you have any comments, I on-line "shrine" to the games and their pro- encourage you to drop a note to the colum- gremmers. James Hague had painstakingly put nisl3. For any general questions, ideas, com- together a list of"classic game programmers" merits, etc, please feel free to contact me at and in addition had interviewed several of the one of the addresses listed below and I'll do more revered game designers for a fascinating my best to answer -- thank you so much for electronic publication entitled Halcyon Days. your letters over the last few months and, Around the same rime, I was trying to put please, keep them cominl! The majority of together an issue on computer graphics and notes from the last issue complimented the the games industry, and so contacted James content, for which I'm extremely grateful on to see if he might be interested in guest edit- behalf of the contributors. However, rather ing such an endeavour. Luckily, he accepted, than print only these, I've decided to wait and ~e issue in your hands now contains the until we have a broad cross section of letters resulting focus. to use in the next Letters column. Over the past decades, computer games Until next issue, all the very besT,,and I have evolved at a remarkable pace. Many of look forward to seeing some of you at the the early titles pushed the platform capabili- upcoming SIGGRAPH 98 25th anniversary ties, but more recently the games industry is conference. proving one of the major factors in pushing Gordon Cameron computer graphics in feneral forward at a Software Development breakneck pace -- many of the new titles are SOFTIMAGE, Inc. generating groundbreaking research of their 3510 boul. St-~urent own, and forcing the hardware (and stan- Suite 400 dards) to evolve co keep up, You can pick up a Montn~, Quebec, H2X 2V2 consumer PC with graphics comparable (or Canada superior) to the workstations of a short time Tel: + I-51A,aA,5-1636 ~ 3445 ago, at a fraction of the cost today, and this Fmc + I-514-845-5676 trend is really shaking up our industry and Email:Eordon_cameron~sll~q-aph-ori forcing innovations at a startling rate. At the same time, it is worthwhile to Jook back at the amazing things people were doing in the earlier days of computer gaming, with far more limited resources (both technical and human). These early pioneers were

Computer Graphics ~ 1998 3 FROM THE EDITOR

Explore the World of Computer Gaming and Computer Graphics

Computer Graphics ~ 1998 3