Advertisement

RealPot: an immersive virtual pottery system with handheld haptic devices

  • Zihan Gao
  • Huiqiang WangEmail author
  • Guangsheng Feng
  • Fangfang Guo
  • Hongwu Lv
  • Bingyang Li
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

We present RealPot, an immersive virtual pottery system with haptic feedback for pottery simulation training using hand-held motion controllers. Our system consists of two major components: an automatic mesh generator and an interactive model editor. The mesh generator can procedurally generate realistic clay meshes by adding Perlin Noise. With the interactive pottery model editor, the user can shape the virtual clay intuitively with a series of bimanual interactions. Based on real-life pottery, a high realism pottery creation workflow was developed and a haptic model was proposed. Our user study investigated how haptic fidelity can impact usability in virtual pottery, and compared our system with a representative work of barehand-based virtual pottery systems. The results of our study reveal that haptic fidelity significantly affects performance and user experience. In addition, the results indicate that our system offers significantly accuracy, presence and usability compared with barehand-based virtual pottery experience.

Keywords

Virtual pottery Natural user interfaces Mesh deformation Haptic feedback 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback and comments. We also thank all the people participated in the user studies. This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61872104), the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province in China (No. F2016009), the Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities in China (No. HEUCF180602 and HEUCFM180604) and the National Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2016ZX03001023-005).

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawala M, Beers AC, Levoy M (1995) 3d painting on scanned surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 1995 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics. ACM, pp 145–ffGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Bastug E, Bennis M, Medard M, Debbah M (2017) Toward interconnected virtual reality: opportunities, challenges, and enablers. IEEE Commun Mag 55(6):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botsch M, Kobbelt L, Pauly M, Alliez P, Lévy B (2010) Polygon mesh processing. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choudhary R, Dewan P (1995) A general multi-user undo/redo model. In: Proceedings of the fourth European conference on computer-supported cooperative work ECSCW’95, Springer, pp 231–246Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cui J, Kuijper A, Sourin A (2016) Exploration of natural free-hand interaction for shape modeling using leap motion controller. In: 2016 international conference on cyberworlds (CW), IEEE, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gao Z, Li J, Wang H, Feng G (2018) Digiclay: an interactive installation for virtual pottery using motion sensing technology. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on virtual reality. ACM, pp 126–132Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Han G, Hwang J, Choi S, Kim GJ (2007) Ar pottery: experiencing pottery making in the augmented space. In: International conference on virtual reality. Springer, pp 642–650Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han YC, Han BJ (2014) Virtual pottery: a virtual 3d audiovisual interface using natural hand motions. Multimed Tools Appl 73(2):917–933MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hinckley K, Pausch R, Proffitt D, Kassell NF (1998) Two-handed virtual manipulation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 5 (3):260–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Jacob RJK, Girouard A, Hirshfield LM, Horn MS, Shaer O, Solovey ET, Zigelbaum J (2008) Reality-based interaction:a framework for post-wimp interfaces. In: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keefe DF, Feliz DA, Moscovich T, Laidlaw DH, LaViola JJ Jr (2001) Cavepainting: a fully immersive 3d artistic medium and interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on interactive 3D graphics. ACM, pp 85–93Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korida K, Nishino H, Utsumiya K (1997) An interactive 3d interface for a virtual ceramic art work environment. In: International Conference on virtual systems and multimedia, 1997. VSMM’97. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 227–234Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koutsoudis A, Pavlidis G, Arnaoutoglou F, Tsiafakis D, Chamzas C (2009) Qp: a tool for generating 3d models of ancient greek pottery. J Cult Herit 10 (2):281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar G, Sharma NK, Bhowmick P (2011) Wheel-throwing in digital space using number-theoretic approach. International Journal of Arts and Technology 4(2):196–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    LaViola JJ, Keefe DF (2011) 3d spatial interaction: applications for art, design, and science. In: ACM Siggraph 2011 courses. ACM, p 1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    LaViola JJ Jr, Kruijff E, McMahan RP, Bowman D, Poupyrev IP (2017) 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McDonnell KT, Qin H, Wlodarczyk RA (2001) Virtual clay: a real-time sculpting system with haptic toolkits. In: Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on interactive 3D graphics. ACM, pp 179–190Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McMahan RP, Bowman DA, Zielinski DJ, Brady RB (2012) Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (4):626–633Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murugappan S, Piya C, Ramani K, et al (2013) Handy-potter: Rapid exploration of rotationally symmetric shapes through natural hand motions. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 13(2):021,008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niehorster DC, Li L, Lappe M (2017) The accuracy and precision of position and orientation tracking in the htc vive virtual reality system for scientific research. i-Perception 8(3):2041669517708,205Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Otsuki M, Sugihara K, Toda A, Shibata F, Kimura A (2017) A brush device with visual and haptic feedback for virtual painting of 3d virtual objects. Virtual Reality, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perlin K (1985) An image synthesizer. Acm Siggraph Computer Graphics 19(3):287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramani K, Lee K Jr, Jasti R, et al (2014) zpots: a virtual pottery experience with spatial interactions using the leap motion device. In: CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 371–374Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramani K, et al (2015) A gesture-free geometric approach for mid-air expression of design intent in 3d virtual pottery. Comput Aided Des 69:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramani K, et al (2016) Extracting hand grasp and motion for intent expression in mid-air shape deformation: a concrete and iterative exploration through a virtual pottery application. Comput Graph 55:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schkolne S, Pruett M, Schröder P (2001) Surface drawing: creating organic 3d shapes with the hand and tangible tools. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 261–268Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sheng J, Balakrishnan R, Singh K (2006) An interface for virtual 3d sculpting via physical proxy. In: GRAPHITE, vol 6, pp 213–220Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleop Virt 3(2):130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Walter R, Bailly G, Valkanova N, Müller J (2014) Cuenesics: using mid-air gestures to select items on interactive public displays. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services. ACM, pp 299–308Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang T, Zhang G, Liu A, Bhuiyan ZA, Jin Q (2018) A secure iot service architecture with an efficient balance dynamics based on cloud and edge computing. IEEE Internet Things J, pp 1–1Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wingcrave C, Williamson B, Varcholik P, Rose J, Miller A, Charbonneau E, Bott J, Laviola J (2010) Wii remote and beyond: Using spatially convenient devices for 3d uis. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 30(2):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Computer Science and TechnologyHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations