Hello everybody my name is Jonas Auda and on behalf of my colleagues Nils Verheyen,
Sven Mayer and Stefan Schneegass, I'm going to present Flyables: Haptic Input Devices for
Virtual Reality using Quadcopters. Virtual reality offers a window into digitally created
immersive worlds. Mostly uses interact with these words using standard controllers. These
controllers provide limited haptic feedback which often does not match the expectations
of the user. While researchers enable VR users to experience specific VR content through
specialized devices they cannot serve as a general interaction tool as there are designed
for specific use cases. To overcome this issue a number of body worn systems have been proposed.
These however have to be worn even if they not needed Passive props provide matching
haptic feedback but are non interactive. Redirection techniques are needed to steer a VR user towards
such props. Further, they provide no counter forces. To address these challenges, we introduce
Flyables: Flying Haptic Input Devices for Virtual Reality using Quadcopters. The core
idea of Flyables is to provide a set of well known 3D printed input devices mounted on
quadcopters. These input devices are represented in VR by virtual counterparts. The Flyables toolkit
already comes with five well known user interface elements which can be 3D printed and attached
to quadcopters. Currently, the Flyables toolkit contains a button, knob, joystick, slider and
a 3D mouse to enable a wide variety of input possibilities. For each of them we designed
the virtual presentation and a physical drone attachment. Our five input elements look and work
as follows: the button can be used to provide discrete one time input events. The knob allows
one to rotate target objects around one axis. The joystick allows input with three degrees
of freedom. Through the slider translations in one dimension can be realized and the 3D
mouse can be used to translate objects in 3D space. We showcased the Flyables toolkit
in a user study with 12 participants. Therefore, we developed four different scenes and corresponding
tasks that should be solved using Flyables. In the first scene, our participants had to
stow away rocks using a remote controlled crane. Our participants used a joystick and
a button to control the crane. The joystick was used to steer the great sideways. The button
to move the crane up and down to pick up the rocks. In a car showroom our participants had
to find three price tags on a car. To find the tags the participants could use the knob
to rotate the car and the button to open close the doors of the car. In a molecule comparison
exercise, our participants compared one molecule to four other molecules. They had to find out
if they are the same or not. Therefore they could use the knob to rotate the molecule and
a 3D mouse to translate the molecule in 3D space. Last, we developed a pilot scenario. In
this scenario the participants had to hit 5 targets in the air with the aircraft.
The participants to the aircraft using the joystick to steer sideways and the slider
to control the speed. We used these four scenes to evaluate the Flyables toolkit. Therefore,
we invited 12 participants. 5 female 7 male and none other. Our participants were aged from
17 to 32 years with an average age of 24.5 years. All participants stated that they are
right handed and nine of the participants used VR before. In our study, we used the following
conditions. Each participant solved the tasks in all four VR scenes. Once using Flyables and
once using state of the art VR controllers. Our study folder within-subject design and
we counterbalanced the scene and input using Latin square. In the following, we present
the results of the user study we measured the task completion time for each scene in
each input. Almost always controllers were faster than Flyables. The only exception here
is the car showroom where participants were faster when using Flyables. Overall we found
that Flyables were slower than VR controllers. We also measured the body movement of our
participants. Here we almost always observed them higher physical movement when participants
were using Flyables compared to VR controllers. Again, the only exception is the car showroom.
To assess the presence, our participants filled out a presence questionnaire. Overall the VR
controllers scored higher than Flyables. However, for "quality of interface" and "haptics" Flyables
scored higher. Two of the scores were significantly different. These are "possibility to act" and
"self evaluation of performance". In both, standard VR controllers scored a higher value. We also
gathered qualitative feedback from our participants. Our participants enjoyed using Flyables. Here,
one participant appreciated that one can move around like in everyday life using Flyables.
Also, participants stated that they felt more immersed while using Flyables. Especially
from a haptics point of view. Also, participants stated that controllers are well-known to them and
therefore easier to use. When we compare Flyables to state of the art controllers we found that
our participants solve the task faster using controllers and the controllers provided a
more precise input compared to Flyables. But our participants stated that the mapping of
the actions to the button is arbitrary. In contrast, Flyables communicate their usage
and provide matching haptic feedback. Further they increase physical movement. To improve
the Flyables toolkit in the future, we extracted future research challenges. These challenges
include additional force feedback and anchoring in the air through specifically designed drones
and software controllers. Such controllers could overtake the controlling of the Flyables
when the system detects that specific counter forces are needed. Also, we envision approaches
to reuse a limited set of drones for multiple virtual objects. As drones can crash easily
during interaction we imagine drones to automatically restart and position themselves after a crash
without the knowledge of the VR user. Last, we envisioned the creation and exploration
of novel UI elements and interaction opportunities. For example, a trust level for accelerating
an aircraft further match the expected haptic feedback. Such elements could be added
to the Flyables toolkit to widen its application. To summarize: we presented the Flyables toolkit
which uses quadcopters with 3D printed attachments to provide haptic input devices in virtual
reality. In a user study, we compared Flyables to state of the art VR controllers. We found
that while controllers are easier to use and more precise Flyables enable a fun and enjoyable
interaction with VR content. To improve the Flyables toolkit we outlined future research
challenges. That could help to make Flyables more applicable. This concludes our presentation.
Now I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you!