Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ORION: One More Step in Virtual Reality Interaction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Trends in Interaction, Virtual Reality and Modeling

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

This work presents the Orion project. It aims to create a low-cost virtual reality system that provides highly satisfying virtual experiences. To this end, the latest technology and the most significant findings from state-of-the-art research are applied to develop a system that provides natural interaction and full freedom of movement. The system’s main features are as follows: wireless operation, real walking to navigate virtual environments, 3D gestural interaction, stereoscopic vision through a head-mounted display (HMD), and user movement tracking using inertial sensors. We discuss preliminary results and key aspects for developing the remainder of the project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2012, Oculus VR, Inc., created a head-mounted display prototype that is called Oculus Rift. It is intended to revolutionize the manner in which people experience interactive content, and according to the tremendous expectations it has raised, the company will soon achieve this revolution. The project has garnered $2.4 million in funding from top video game companies and game enthusiasts around the world. Furthermore, they offered the Oculus Rift development kit (which cost $300) and expected hundreds of requests for it. They were overwhelmed when they received almost 10,000 requests (http://www.oculusvr.com).

  2. 2.

    Oculus VR, Inc., is developing an inertial sensor that supports refresh rates as high as 1,000 Hz.

  3. 3.

    Wireless video link from Sensics Inc. (http://sensics.com)

  4. 4.

    Caustic Professional (https://caustic.com)

  5. 5.

    NaturalPoint, Inc. (http://www.naturalpoint.com)

  6. 6.

    XSens. (http://www.xsens.com)

  7. 7.

    3D sound is based on HRTFs (head-related transfer functions).

  8. 8.

    Oculus Rift features: field of view: 110° diagonal, 90° horizontal. Resolution: 1,280 × 800 (640 × 800 per eye). Mass: 220 g (http://www.oculusvr.com)

  9. 9.

    http://sensics.com/products/low-latency-hd1080-wireless-video

  10. 10.

    When the users turns his/her head at 60° per second and uses an HMD with 100° of horizontal FOV and 1280 pixels of horizontal resolution, and the overall latency is 50 milliseconds, then the displayed image is shifted 3° or, equivalently, 35 pixels.

  11. 11.

    Oculus Latency Tester (http://www.oculusvr.com)

  12. 12.

    Caustic Ray-Tracing Accelerator Boards (https://caustic.com)

  13. 13.

    On the project website can be found the research results, the used resources, videos from the prototypes, and developed applications [23].

  14. 14.

    We have used wireless Inertia Cube 3 inertial sensors from Intersense (www.intersense.com), the zSight HMD from Sensics (http://sensics.com), and its wireless video link.

  15. 15.

    NaturalPoint, Inc. (http://www.naturalpoint.com)

  16. 16.

    These tools and videos that show them working can be found at the project web site [23].

References

  1. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lindeman, R.W., & Beckhaus, S. (2009). Crafting memorable VR experiences using experiential fidelity. In ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST (pp. 187–190). Virginia: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boger, Y. (2008). The 2008 HMD survey: are we there yet? White paper published by Sensics Inc. http://www.sensics.com/files/documents/2008SurveyResults.pdf

  4. Cummings, J. J., Bailenson, J. N., & Fidler, M. J. (2012). How immersive is enough? A foundation for a meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on measured presence. In Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference. Philadelphia: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stone, R. (2009). Serious games: Virtual reality’s second coming? Virtual Reality, 13(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3, 130–144.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Usoh, M., Arthur, K., & Whitton, M. C. et al. (1999). Walking, walking-in-place, flying in virtual environments. In Proceedings Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 359–364). Los Angeles: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nordahl, R. (2005). Self-induced footsteps sounds in virtual reality: Latency, recognition, quality and presence. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Workshop on Presence (pp. 353–354). London: United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Steinicke, F., Bruder, G., Hinrichs, K., Steed, A., & Gerlach, A. L. (2009). Does a gradual transition to the virtual world increase presence? In Proceedings – IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 203–210). Louisiana: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chertoff, D. B., Goldiez, B., & LaViola, Jr. J. J. (2010). Virtual experience test: A virtual environment evaluation questionnaire. In: Proceedings – IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 103–110). Massachusetts: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 497–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frees, S. (2010). Context-driven interaction in immersive virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 14(4), 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer, C., Sukumar, P. T., & Hazas, M. (2012). Tutorial: Implementation of a pedestrian tracker using foot-mounted inertial sensors. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 12, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Craig, A. B., Sherman, W. R., & Will, J. D. (2012). Developing virtual reality applications: Foundations of effective design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Steinicke, F., Bruder, G., Jerald, J., et al. (2010). Estimation of detection thresholds for redirected walking techniques. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peck, T. C., Fuchs, H., & Whitton, M. C. (2012). The design and evaluation of a large-scale real-walking locomotion interface. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(7), 1053–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suma, E. A., Lipps, Z., Finkelstein, S., et al. (2012). Impossible spaces: Maximizing natural walking in virtual environments with self-overlapping architecture. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(4), 555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams, B., Narasimham, G., & Rump, B. et al. (2007). Exploring large virtual environments with an HMD when physical space is limited. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 41–48).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burns, E., Whitton, M. C., & Razzaque, S. et al. (2005). The hand is slower than the eye: A quantitative exploration of visual dominance over proprioception. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 3–10). Bonn: Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Choumane, A., Casiez, G., & Grisoni, L. (2010). Buttonless clicking: Intuitive select and pick-release through gesture analysis. In Proceedings – IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 67–70). Massachusetts: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. di Luca, M. (2010). New method to measure end-to-end delay of virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(6), 569–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Orion project. (2012). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from http://www.diana.uma.es/orion/eIndex.html

  24. de la Rubia, E., & Diaz-Estrella, A. (2012). A forward step in virtual reality. In Proceedings of IADIS CGVCVIP 2012 Conference Lisbon (pp. 171–174). Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  25. de la Rubia, E., & Diaz-Estrella, A. (2013). Improved pedestrian tracking through Kalman covariance error selective reset. Electronic Letters, 49(7), 464–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. de la Rubia, E., & Diaz-Estrella, A. (2012). Tool generator for an interaction lab. In INTERACCION ‘12: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador (pp. 285–288). Elche: Spain.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by the Junta de Andalucia and the project CENIT España Virtual, within the Ingenio 2010 program, subcontracted by Elecnor Deimos.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronic Technology, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain

    Ernesto de la Rubia & Antonio Diaz-Estrella

Authors
  1. Ernesto de la Rubia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Diaz-Estrella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernesto de la Rubia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computing Systems Department, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Albacete, Spain

    Victor M.R. Penichet

  2. Center of Operations Research University, University of Elche, Alicante, Alicante, Spain

    Antonio Peñalver

  3. Computing Systems Department, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Albacete, Spain

    José A. Gallud

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de la Rubia, E., Diaz-Estrella, A. (2013). ORION: One More Step in Virtual Reality Interaction. In: Penichet, V., Peñalver, A., Gallud, J. (eds) New Trends in Interaction, Virtual Reality and Modeling. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5445-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5445-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5444-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5445-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation