8 ms·

AR applications already provide concrete added value in construction where you can overlay the digital model with the site for inspections and such. I would se

by fsloth 8y ago

AR applications already provide concrete added value in construction where you can overlay the digital model with the site for inspections and such. I would see Magic Leap falls to same category as hololens - which is used for real work in the construction industry - but only on a more affordable price point. The key question is how easy it is to develop applications for it. Hololens basically consumes unity apps which makes it a pretty easy for development and deployment.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
AR applications already provide concrete added value in construction where you can overlay the digital model with the site for inspections and such You say that, but we built the leading product for this in 2014 (Visidraft) and AEC still isn't ready in 2018 for this for a host of reasons. Forgetting for a moment that 99% of these applications are on tablets and phones - which is still too difficult to manage for most AEC firms - the problems inherent in the lack of infrastructure to solve the 3D content management, object localization, user collaboration and markup management are still unsolved. Not technically mind you, but in business processes and workflow. Add HMD to that and you cut the market deployment by 1/1000th. So a demo here or there from DAQRI or Hololens does not prove the value of it being a serious and concrete product. Beyond that though, the biggest problem was that it ends up providing the most value as a sales/collab tool between clients and developers, and we constantly heard that architects didn't want to use it because it put too much power into the client's hand. Imagine that. So I'm not sure where you're getting the "provide concrete added value." Show me the successful product - not a demo, or a pilot product, but one that is generating profit at scale and is integrated into an entire business process at a firm like Gensler (one of our clients previously). It's a theoretically great use case, but in practice, it requires too much from the user to make it work as a stable product. [1] https://www.architectmagazine.com/videos/visidraft-augmented-reality-for-visualizing-cad-designs https://www.architectmagazine.com/videos/visidraft-augmented...
- tootie 8y ago
  That's an interesting POV and I do actually see business popping up whose core competency is managing 3d models. Particularly for retail products like furniture. No one has a really smooth process and costs are high, but there is definitely activity going on and progress is being made.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    I can name probably a dozen companies trying to win the 3D object CRM game, but nobody is in the lead currently. It's still too early for standards to emerge and most content creators are duplicating effort across product lines eg. Target, Houzz, Wayfair are all modeling the same object in different ways (photogrammetry, hand modeling etc...). 3D content creation is one of, if not the biggest bottleneck for AR.
    - roymurdock 8y ago
      This is an area where Amazon/AWS/Sumerian are going to shine. I can see a world where retailers on Amazon.com are incentivized or forced to submit 3D models of their products along when creating a for sale posting. Consumers will put on their AR glasses, or use WebVR to to visualize the item before they purchase. Amazon will have the gatekeeping power to force vendors to use a certain standard 3D modeling process, or have an in-house team receive the products and use photogrammetry/CAD modeling. How much value/productivity will this generate - separate question but one worth asking.
      - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
        Maybe. However Amazon (et al) have trouble just getting good 2D images from Vendors and is not making much of a push at all to get vendors to build 3D content. This is a long standing problem: Should retailers do the modeling or vendors? It's expensive and hard on infrastructure to do it, and CAD standards aren't consistent enough to use that avenue. Vendors aren't tech savvy and have questionable practices for investing in marketing/sales materials, including photography because it doesn't scale. I could go all day on this, but I won't. Bottom line is, none of the major platforms are stepping up and being leaders in AR on the content side. It's pretty marginal efforts so the results are marginal. I think everyone is waiting around for the Apple glasses now.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Trimble has a bunch of mixed reality solutions in the market and more are in the pipeline: http://mixedreality.trimble.com http://mixedreality.trimble.com You are quite right of the challenges but the technical competence of the largest engineering companies is quite sufficient to implement new solutions if they actually provide value and fit into their pipeline (err... that means most of the time that they can display dwg and revit models).
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    We have Trimble equipment in our demo center, very cool AND industry provided design and use case input so they've got baked in customers. Hololens 2 and Trimble (and Andromeda) ... If they get it right ...
- AETechie 8y ago
  Salespeople will (often) say anything that - with some explanation and wordsmithing - is a true (albeit typically unverifiable) statement. I feel like this is the start of explaining the why: "...architects didn't want to use it because it put too much power into the client's hand." That's likely true for many more traditional Architectural professionals considering early AEC success case studies with AR/VR. I have to imagine the average Architect in a leadership role is battle-hardened by the changes that have displaced much of their fee, influence and involvement in the existing building construction framework. Giving up more of any of those likely feels like a loss for those individuals. Just as early IT professionals felt the loss of their wizard powers as computers and mobile became consumerized, Architects are feeling the loss of their wizard powers as clients become more informed and engaged. AR remains from what I can see, the fodder of AE start-ups and larger firms placing their bets on the technology to address project design and coordination challenges. VR has already inundated every firm I work with - big and small - on most projects they undertake.
- fsloth 8y ago
  "the biggest problem was that it ends up providing the most value as a sales/collab tool between clients and developers" That's not really a problem, rather it proves there is a valuable use case for it. Depending on the process architects have varying power over the overall project process. This can vary a lot between regions, companies and domains (i.e residential, offshore, bridges, etc etc)
tootie 8y ago
That's my thinking as well. There are probably a ton of industry applications in design, engineering and architecture. Folks who are used to wearing goggles and hardhats aren't worried about looking funny. And if you can prove real ROI for businesses, you can charge $5-10K for a sturdy headset and businesses will pay it. Trying to go mass market out of the gate seems like overreach.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Already existed for years at Daqri with pretty robust support, implementation capabilities and proof points in industry. Uptake is lackluster and sales cycles are long. https://daqri.com/ https://daqri.com/ https://shop.daqri.com/ https://shop.daqri.com/
  - skewart 8y ago
    I'd be really curious to hear if you have more insights on why uptake is lackluster? Do you suspect AR glasses just aren't actually that useful for most industries? Or is it more that current technologies have specific limitations that prevent these kinds of products from living up to their potential?
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      It's all of the above really. More Simply: It's not solving user problems better/faster/cheaper than current solutions. It's an order of magnitude harder to create 3D content than it is 2D content. Tying 3D content to the real world in a way that is useful and persistent is incredibly difficult. The AR form factor (phone or HMD) is still wonky and nonstandard. Too many other factors to consider still.
      - piva00 8y ago
        Isn't construction/architecture nowadays moving more and more to BMI software? I'd assume that with a BMI model and AR capabilities (even from a phone) where you set a square (or some other shape) with known dimensions on the ground to calibrate and use GPS (or other positioning systems) for determining position/heading, doesn't seem like software for visualisation of models in-site should be that hard. Even on a current phone it should be doable. What am I missing? Because it feels like there is some complexity I'm not considering.
raesene9 8y ago
Whilst the Hololens is currently more expensive than this version of MagicLeap, I'll be interested to see what MS produce next year when the next version is scheduled to come out. One thing that I think MagicLeap have got wrong for a business market is not working over glasses (it seems like you need to fit prescription lenses to the device) That means you can't easily share the device with others, which I would think would be a common use case in business (i.e. most places won't buy one device per user, but a number of devices for a department)
- com2kid 8y ago
  > Whilst the Hololens is currently more expensive than this version of MagicLeap, I'll be interested to see what MS produce next year when the next version is scheduled to come out. Microsoft can also sell the Hololens at cost to get people building on their cloud platform for that sweet, sweet, reoccurring revenue. In comparison, MagicLeap has a lot of investors they need to make happy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
Absolutely. Similarly AR overlays of services under roads, in buildings and big refinaries and such. I think architects and engineers are an excellent target audience. As with Google Glass, ARs use case is going to be niche professions before consumer.

by fsloth 8y ago

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

AR applications already provide concrete added value in construction where you can overlay the digital model with the site for inspections and such You say that, but we built the leading product for this in 2014 (Visidraft) and AEC still isn't ready in 2018 for this for a host of reasons. Forgetting for a moment that 99% of these applications are on tablets and phones - which is still too difficult to manage for most AEC firms - the problems inherent in the lack of infrastructure to solve the 3D content management, object localization, user collaboration and markup management are still unsolved. Not technically mind you, but in business processes and workflow. Add HMD to that and you cut the market deployment by 1/1000th. So a demo here or there from DAQRI or Hololens does not prove the value of it being a serious and concrete product. Beyond that though, the biggest problem was that it ends up providing the most value as a sales/collab tool between clients and developers, and we constantly heard that architects didn't want to use it because it put too much power into the client's hand. Imagine that. So I'm not sure where you're getting the "provide concrete added value." Show me the successful product - not a demo, or a pilot product, but one that is generating profit at scale and is integrated into an entire business process at a firm like Gensler (one of our clients previously). It's a theoretically great use case, but in practice, it requires too much from the user to make it work as a stable product. [1] https://www.architectmagazine.com/videos/visidraft-augmented-reality-for-visualizing-cad-designs https://www.architectmagazine.com/videos/visidraft-augmented...

tootie 8y ago
That's an interesting POV and I do actually see business popping up whose core competency is managing 3d models. Particularly for retail products like furniture. No one has a really smooth process and costs are high, but there is definitely activity going on and progress is being made.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  I can name probably a dozen companies trying to win the 3D object CRM game, but nobody is in the lead currently. It's still too early for standards to emerge and most content creators are duplicating effort across product lines eg. Target, Houzz, Wayfair are all modeling the same object in different ways (photogrammetry, hand modeling etc...). 3D content creation is one of, if not the biggest bottleneck for AR.
  - roymurdock 8y ago
    This is an area where Amazon/AWS/Sumerian are going to shine. I can see a world where retailers on Amazon.com are incentivized or forced to submit 3D models of their products along when creating a for sale posting. Consumers will put on their AR glasses, or use WebVR to to visualize the item before they purchase. Amazon will have the gatekeeping power to force vendors to use a certain standard 3D modeling process, or have an in-house team receive the products and use photogrammetry/CAD modeling. How much value/productivity will this generate - separate question but one worth asking.
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      Maybe. However Amazon (et al) have trouble just getting good 2D images from Vendors and is not making much of a push at all to get vendors to build 3D content. This is a long standing problem: Should retailers do the modeling or vendors? It's expensive and hard on infrastructure to do it, and CAD standards aren't consistent enough to use that avenue. Vendors aren't tech savvy and have questionable practices for investing in marketing/sales materials, including photography because it doesn't scale. I could go all day on this, but I won't. Bottom line is, none of the major platforms are stepping up and being leaders in AR on the content side. It's pretty marginal efforts so the results are marginal. I think everyone is waiting around for the Apple glasses now.
fsloth 8y ago
Trimble has a bunch of mixed reality solutions in the market and more are in the pipeline: http://mixedreality.trimble.com http://mixedreality.trimble.com You are quite right of the challenges but the technical competence of the largest engineering companies is quite sufficient to implement new solutions if they actually provide value and fit into their pipeline (err... that means most of the time that they can display dwg and revit models).
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  We have Trimble equipment in our demo center, very cool AND industry provided design and use case input so they've got baked in customers. Hololens 2 and Trimble (and Andromeda) ... If they get it right ...
AETechie 8y ago
Salespeople will (often) say anything that - with some explanation and wordsmithing - is a true (albeit typically unverifiable) statement. I feel like this is the start of explaining the why: "...architects didn't want to use it because it put too much power into the client's hand." That's likely true for many more traditional Architectural professionals considering early AEC success case studies with AR/VR. I have to imagine the average Architect in a leadership role is battle-hardened by the changes that have displaced much of their fee, influence and involvement in the existing building construction framework. Giving up more of any of those likely feels like a loss for those individuals. Just as early IT professionals felt the loss of their wizard powers as computers and mobile became consumerized, Architects are feeling the loss of their wizard powers as clients become more informed and engaged. AR remains from what I can see, the fodder of AE start-ups and larger firms placing their bets on the technology to address project design and coordination challenges. VR has already inundated every firm I work with - big and small - on most projects they undertake.
fsloth 8y ago
"the biggest problem was that it ends up providing the most value as a sales/collab tool between clients and developers" That's not really a problem, rather it proves there is a valuable use case for it. Depending on the process architects have varying power over the overall project process. This can vary a lot between regions, companies and domains (i.e residential, offshore, bridges, etc etc)

tootie 8y ago

That's my thinking as well. There are probably a ton of industry applications in design, engineering and architecture. Folks who are used to wearing goggles and hardhats aren't worried about looking funny. And if you can prove real ROI for businesses, you can charge $5-10K for a sturdy headset and businesses will pay it. Trying to go mass market out of the gate seems like overreach.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Already existed for years at Daqri with pretty robust support, implementation capabilities and proof points in industry. Uptake is lackluster and sales cycles are long. https://daqri.com/ https://daqri.com/ https://shop.daqri.com/ https://shop.daqri.com/
- skewart 8y ago
  I'd be really curious to hear if you have more insights on why uptake is lackluster? Do you suspect AR glasses just aren't actually that useful for most industries? Or is it more that current technologies have specific limitations that prevent these kinds of products from living up to their potential?
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    It's all of the above really. More Simply: It's not solving user problems better/faster/cheaper than current solutions. It's an order of magnitude harder to create 3D content than it is 2D content. Tying 3D content to the real world in a way that is useful and persistent is incredibly difficult. The AR form factor (phone or HMD) is still wonky and nonstandard. Too many other factors to consider still.
    - piva00 8y ago
      Isn't construction/architecture nowadays moving more and more to BMI software? I'd assume that with a BMI model and AR capabilities (even from a phone) where you set a square (or some other shape) with known dimensions on the ground to calibrate and use GPS (or other positioning systems) for determining position/heading, doesn't seem like software for visualisation of models in-site should be that hard. Even on a current phone it should be doable. What am I missing? Because it feels like there is some complexity I'm not considering.

raesene9 8y ago

Whilst the Hololens is currently more expensive than this version of MagicLeap, I'll be interested to see what MS produce next year when the next version is scheduled to come out. One thing that I think MagicLeap have got wrong for a business market is not working over glasses (it seems like you need to fit prescription lenses to the device) That means you can't easily share the device with others, which I would think would be a common use case in business (i.e. most places won't buy one device per user, but a number of devices for a department)

com2kid 8y ago
> Whilst the Hololens is currently more expensive than this version of MagicLeap, I'll be interested to see what MS produce next year when the next version is scheduled to come out. Microsoft can also sell the Hololens at cost to get people building on their cloud platform for that sweet, sweet, reoccurring revenue. In comparison, MagicLeap has a lot of investors they need to make happy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago

Absolutely. Similarly AR overlays of services under roads, in buildings and big refinaries and such. I think architects and engineers are an excellent target audience. As with Google Glass, ARs use case is going to be niche professions before consumer.