Advertisement

Distributed Data Exchange with Leap Motion

  • Mirko Pani
  • Fabio Poiesi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10851)

Abstract

Collaborative virtual environments can connect people in social virtual spaces even when they are geographically distant from each other. Hand interactions are fundamental to enable natural collaboration and immersive experiences as they are a visually intuitive means of communication. However, scalability is challenging as numerous participants typically produce a large volume of visualisation data that may overload a single node if the management is centralised. In this paper we propose a transmission strategy where the high-throughput visualisation data (e.g. hand joints) is exchanged amongst participants in a distributed fashion. We use a level-of-detail strategy to further reduce the network traffic accounting for spatial distances amongst participants in the virtual space. We design an experiment where we analyse the network traffic in a virtual environment with up to seven participants whose hands are tracked using Leap Motion. We show that the proposed method can effectively reduce the network traffic of visualisation data when compared to a centralised approach.

Keywords

Collaborative virtual environments Distributed communication Level of detail Hand tracking Leap Motion Unity3D 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 687757.

References

  1. 1.
    Google Cardboard. vr.google.com/cardboard. Accessed May 2018
  2. 2.
    High Level API. docs.unity3d.com/Manual/UNetUsingHLAPI.html. Accessed May 2018
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Leap Motion. leapmotion.com. Accessed May 2018
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Leap Motion latency. blog.leapmotion.com/understanding-latency-part-1. Accessed May 2018
  7. 7.
    Live Scan 3D. github.com/MarekKowalski/LiveScan3D. Accessed May 2018
  8. 8.
    Second Life. secondlife.com. Accessed May 2018
  9. 9.
    Unity 3D. unity3d.com. Accessed May 2018
  10. 10.
    VibeHub. youtu.be/azUXUr6rWSc. Accessed May 2018
  11. 11.
    Abdulazeez, S., Rhalibi, A., Al-Jumeily, D.: Evaluation of scalability and communication in MMOGs. In: Proceedings of Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, Las Vegas, USA, January 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed, D., Shirmohammadi, S.: A dynamic area of interest management and collaboration model for P2P MMOGs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real-Time Applications, Vancouver, CAN, October 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carlini, E., Ricci, L., Coppola, M.: Reducing server load in MMOG via P2P Gossip. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games, Venice, IT, November 2012Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi, S., Jung, K., Noh, S.: Virtual reality applications in manufacturing industries: past research, present findings, and future directions. Concurr. Eng. 23(1), 40–63 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freina, L., Ott, M.: A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In: Proceedings of eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, RO, April 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenwald, S., Corning, W., Maes, P.: Multi-user framework for collaboration and co-creation in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Philadelphia, US, June 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guna, J., Jakus, G., Pogacnik, M., Tomazic, S., Sodnik, J.: An analysis of the precision and reliability of the Leap Motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors 14(2), 3702–3720 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hilfert, T., Konig, M.: Virtual reality applications in manufacturing industries: past research, present findings, and future directions. Visual. Eng. 4(3), 1–18 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khademi, M., Hondori, H., McKenzie, A., Dodakian, L., Lopes, C., Cramer, S.: Free-hand interaction with leap motion controller for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, May 2014Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, K., Yeom, I., Lee, J.: HYMS: a hybrid MMOG server architecture. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 87–D, 2706–2713 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McMahan, R., Alon, A., Lazem, S., Beaton, R., Machaj, D., Schaefer, M., Silva, M., Leal, A., Hagan, R., Bowman, D.: Evaluating natural interaction techniques in video games. In: 2010 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, Waltham, US, March 2010Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pretto, N., Poiesi, F.: Towards gesture-based multi-user interactions in collaborative virtual environments. In: International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XLII-2/W8, Hamburg, GE, pp. 203–208, November 2017Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmalstieg, D., Gervautz, M.: Demand-driven geometry transmission for distributed virtual environment. Comput. Graph. Forum 15(3), 421–431 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yahyavi, A., Kemme, B.: Peer-to-peer architectures for massively multiplayer online games: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 46(1), 1–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversità degli Studi di TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Technologies of VisionFondazione Bruno KesslerTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations