Microsoft Plans VR Simulation of Everything?

Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft recently updated ESP, a virtual reality modeling platform that until now has primarily been used to model aircraft and flight simulations. Microsoft has plans to expand it to other industries such as real estate and urban planning, but one of the most interesting possibilities could be what one observer refers to as a 'simulation of everything,' based on Virtual Earth and perhaps even user-generated content. Indeed, Microsoft's research chief has been promoting the idea of commerce applications and other tools built on top of what he calls the 'Spatial Web', a blend of 3D, video, and location-aware technologies. He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery."

Comments

I've never understood this sort of thing

[fiordhraoi]

Is it really easier or more desirable to "virtually browse" store shelves than to browse a web page? It seems to me to be a clunky, uninspired way to interact in a digital environment.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[lxs]

Did you really think that Microsoft Bob could be killed that easily?

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[TheRealMindChild]

It is, but lets be honest. The point of these "virtual world" interfaces is so that an unfamiliar person can use skills they already know to use the computer. When a 65 year old lady tries to use a computer for the first time, it can be strange and overwhelming. If she was able to see and interact with the system in a paradigm that she is already knows how to deal with, the anxiety and reluctance will come way down.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[Onaga]

Maybe. For people with arachnophobia, researchers were able to help them by having them virtually approach a large spider and eventually "touch" it. link

Another example I can think of is shopping for curtains or rugs. It would be nice to be able to jump into a virtual room with whatever curtains you are thinking of to see how it would look.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[hey!]

Well, yeah. A lot of early attempts to make user interfaces better were based on modeling a literal desktop with things like file cabinets underneath and rolodexes and phones on top. They had limited short term success. In the long term the one that was successful was a "desktop" on which you put "windows" (stretchy ones at that) through which you viewed infinitely expandable sheets of paper. So go figure. You want computers to make things that are hard to do in the real world easy, and usually this means changing the rules.

However, one BIG application of VR that has only really begun to get developed is enhancing users' interactions with the real world. GPS units are a good example of this. You take them out into the world to see where you are. The ability to call up a Google street view on an Android phone is more than a curiosity. It tells you other things, like what street number you are at; it makes it possible to see around the corner without actually going around the corner.

I think form factor has been the limiting factor in this obvious application of VR. For example, really good heads up projection glasses would make it possible to superimpose information and models on real world objects. You could outline the parts of a copy machine and animate the process of clearing a paper jam at "C".

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[BornAgainSlakr]

Not at all. Metaphors only go so far and then you start running into the limitations of the hardware used to interface with the visuals.

For instance, making a virtual store sounds good and might seem familiar to your hypothetical 65 year-old. However, this person did not grow up using a keyboard and mouse to walk through stores. So, the metaphor breaks down very quickly when you have to start implementing controls for navigation through this world. Ultimately, the experience will be more inefficient and frustrating than if the person just went to a real store.

Further, you are only modeling one aspect of the experience: walking through the store. You are not using a "walk out front door, get in car, put key in ignition, drive to store" metaphor to model how to get to that virtual store.

If this hypothetical person is able to start his/her computer, start a web browser, and navigate to the virtual store page, then it is very likely that he/she is also able to understand how to use a web page like Amazon to find products to buy. Therefore, the effort to model the virtual world is moot unless all you want is eye candy that makes the whole experience incredibly inefficient.

Re:I've never understood this sort of thing

[brunes69]

I for one would love to "superimpose models on real world objects.".

I can think of many times I would rather be looking at a model than what I am actually looking at...

Hasn't Google already done this?

[elrous0]

Between Google's Street View and their failed Lively, it would seem like MS is once again following the old "imitate, don't innovate" philosophy here. And even Google abandoned Lively when they realized that (like VRML and its many other predecessors) it wasn't of much use in practical application.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of all the por... uhh, possibilities!

As someone who has never used Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm not the target market, but this seems stupid beyond belief.

Some shopkeeper is going to use photosynth instead of simply setting up a catalog for online commerce?

People are having so much trouble shopping they have to have the real world modeled?

Things are laid out in isles and shelfs because that is a good way to use space in the physical world, not because people need to shop that way.
   

Re:As someone who has never used Second Life

[fprintf]

How many novel ideas that finally took hold were initially bandied about as "unnecessary" and a "solution in search of a problem". As with any forward thinking company, you create ideas, test market them, further develop the ones that seem to gain interest, do it some more, and if you are lucky 1 in 5 will be successful. Fortunately for Microsoft, they seem to have deeper pockets than most and can take this ideation further along, beyond the simple 'let's try it out with a few of my friends' that casual business development takes, so we end up with articles (and responses) like this suggesting the uselessness of an idea.

If I think about all the ideas that I have dismissed as "not possible", I'd be Bill Gates or Sergey Brin kind of money. Unfortunately I am not so persistent to pursue my ideas, nor creative to find just the right kind of way to implement the ideas, and I'd think most people aren't.

Anyway, it might be an idea whose time has come. Or perhaps someone else will come along with a minor tweak that makes it take off when the idea comes up yet again in a few years. I can't blame Microsoft, Google or any other company pursuing VR for trying though. It is how they are going to make money in the future I'd bet... though I won't bet because I know I won't pick the right one and don't have enough money to spread across all the different potential VR solutions. :-)

Simulations of simulations?

[kvezach]

In order to be a simulation of everything, it has to contain a simulation of itself, too; and then it has to contain a simulation of a simulation of itself... infinite descent! Only Microsoft would think they could manage that in finite space :-)

Systems managers rejoice!

[GMonkeyLouie]

Everyone else seems to be pretty skeptical of the usefulness of "Virtual World" technology, but I think it could revolutionize consulting.

I could show people competing alternatives for recommendations on how to restructure their physical operations, like "in scenario one we have your checkout lanes over here, just past the cheeses... contrast that with scenario two, where we have them flanked by bakery counters...".

Also, has anyone considered how excellent this could be for porn?

A blast from the past.

[mbone]

He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery."

With all due respect, this sounds very 1996. Why on Earth would anyone want to shop that way ?

Not a useful interface

[Isvara]

I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.

Re:hmm

[sveard]

Blue Syringe of Death

I've been dreaming about this for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously can't wait to play GTA:8 - my neighborhood. Without getting in trouble this time.

Yes,

[sveard]

But does it simulate linux?

(these posts almost write themselves, so easy!)

1980s mistakes

[Tom]

Welcome to the 21st century. Right now, we are doing an "80s revival". No, that doesn't mean the clothes or music, for this one, we are reviving 1980s faults, errors and misconceptions.

Today: The misguided idea that 3D, VR or other "close to reality" interfaces are by default good interfaces. Let's ignore the past 20 years of research! Be happy! There is no uncanny valley. We don't have other options that might offer better interfaces than a simulation of reality does. No, let's assume that rocket cars, 50s music and VR are what we want.

Seriously, this is so stupid, it hurts. When I'm online I don't want to "browse". That was 20 years ago. Even "searching" is on its way out. I don't want a cheap 3D copy of your shop, I want something adapted to the medium I'm using. I want search, overviews and recommendations. I want to narrow down my view and sort according to arbitrary criteria of my own, not browse through the collection in whatever order you put it up in your shop.

It appears TFA misses completly why people do online shopping at all. Newsflash: It is very rarely because you don't want to walk or drive to the shop. In fact, I've been in a physical shop multiple times and went online there in order to research and sometimes even buy the article I was holding in my hands online. More information, price comparisons, and many more things.

gah.

[apodyopsis]

gaah. this is the sort of drivel that managers beat over and looks good in slideshows.

this smacks of first life... http://www.getafirstlife.com/

at the end of the day I can see the appeal of virtual models of real events, for example
1. police officers using stereoscopic cameras to build a very, very detailed model of the crime scene that can be explored later on or shown to a jury
2. virtual walk through of museums, natural wonders or education exhibits

but shopping and other mundane aspects of life? the obvious comment is that it will waste power, take longer and never be as satisfying as the real thing.

that said, if you can build me a holodeck then I am pretty sure I will never leave it, nothing could be as important as the simulated Monica Belluci and her simulated identical sisters.

The new twist: Photosynth

[dazedNconfuzed]

Yes, all the snide comments about VR being so '90s, been there done that didn't work, and rehashing of all the gung-ho fanboy rhetoric aside, there IS something new to this.

Photosynth.

A major problem with VR was having to construct everything manually. You want a shelf full of products? start drawing lots of polygons by hand - and that's a lot of polygons. Yes, there were some tools to help, but it still came down to a largely handcrafted virtual world - most of which turned out pretty lame.

Enter Photosynth.

Now said shopkeeper can spend 10 minutes wandering thru his store with a video camera running, take a gazillion frames of lots of angles of view, and let Photosynth stitch it all together into a fully-formed, fully-illustrated 3D model. Behold: a detailed, realistic 3D walk-thru rendering of the entire store in about an hour, mostly generated automatically.

And before anyone complains that it's slow, hard to use, etc. - it's little different from "first person shooters", which provide a familiar 3D interactive walkthru experience. Difference is, this one is the real world - without all that tedious hand-measuring hand-coding of agonizing detail of reality.

'bout time someone did this. Made sense to me long before I saw Photosynth turn pictures into 3D models, M$ just did it before I got to it (funny how deep pockets helps that...).

Re:And the codeword for the project is...

[TypoNAM]

Neo: If you're blue screened in the matrix, you die here?
Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind