Proposed new product category: SMD (static mobility device)

[ftarnogol]

The rift has not just spawned new software development but also hardware, such as the Virtuix Omni and wizdish... what do you think if we start calling them SMDs? Sounds similar to HMD, application is related and it kind of makes sense to -to me-.

I did a quick google search and didn't see the term used anywhere on the internet.


Native english speakers, does it make sense or did I get the word arrangement wrong?

[geekmaster]

The WizDish and the Virtuix Omni are both versions of a class of device previously known as a "Sufficient-Motion Walking Simulator".

More details here about a similar version of this device studied extensively since 1996 (with the 1998 model still in use by the military):
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 36#p100627

No need to invent a new name (even if it sounds" sexier") when an adequate name (however cumbersome) already exists. Yet another name will just make it harder to find it (or prior art) with a search engine.

EDIT: The term ODT (Omni-Directional Treadmill) is also commonly (mis)used for these passive devices, but this name rather implies an active "treadmill-like" floor, unlike these strictly passive devices. Now, if we add some form of active haptic feedback into the mix, these naming conventions will get even more confusing.

[cybereality]

I think it works.

The term being kicked around previously was ODT (omni-directional treadmill) but this doesn't exactly fit with passive devices like the Wizdish.

Can I ask what the static refers to exactly. Does this mean it does not have moving parts, or that the user himself is not moving?

[geekmaster]

Can I ask what the static refers to exactly. Does this mean it does not have moving parts, or that the user himself is not moving?

I think that he either meant "Sufficient-Motion" (as in the established class name for these devices), or "passive" as you described.

[geekmaster]

... what do you think if we start calling them SMDs? Sounds similar to HMD, application is related and it kind of makes sense to -to me-.

I did a quick google search and didn't see the term used anywhere on the internet.

The Oculus Rift (or any other modern electronic device) already has more SMD thingies in it than you would want to count. See definition #3 here (don't even THINK about definition #1 ):

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/SMD

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihoX7x0RBz8[/youtube]

But then again, we could add yet another new definition for SMD: "Sufficient-Motion Device".

[STRZ]

Why not VRMD ?

[geekmaster]

Why not VRMD ?

Wasn't VRMD already used for a medical VR simulator? FYI, an MD is a medical doctor. Medical and military establishments have both been doing VR for quite awhile now.

How about Walking Motion Devices? Oh, wait... You could have imminent government intrusion while they ransack your home searching for WMDs. Body cavity search due to an unfortunate choice of device name? No thanks! I guess that names (and especially acronyms) really are important.

[ftarnogol]

I think it works.

The term being kicked around previously was ODT (omni-directional treadmill) but this doesn't exactly fit with passive devices like the Wizdish.

Can I ask what the static refers to exactly. Does this mean it does not have moving parts, or that the user himself is not moving?

Option B, the user himself is not moving

[ftarnogol]

Why not VRMD ?

Wasn't VRMD already used for a medical VR simulator? FYI, an MD is a medical doctor. Medical and military establishments have both been doing VR for quite awhile now.

How about Walking Motion Devices? Oh, wait... You could have imminent government intrusion while they ransack your home searching for WMDs. Body cavity search due to an unfortunate choice of device name? No thanks! I guess that names (and especially acronyms) really are important.

yeah, let's skip WMD for now

[STRZ]

Why not VRMD ?

Wasn't VRMD already used for a medical VR simulator? FYI, an MD is a medical doctor. Medical and military establishments have both been doing VR for quite awhile now.

How about Walking Motion Devices? Oh, wait... You could have imminent government intrusion while they ransack your home searching for WMDs. Body cavity search due to an unfortunate choice of device name? No thanks! I guess that names (and especially acronyms) really are important.

mmd

scnr

[geekmaster]

I have no idea what MMD stands for. It has so many definitions. I first thought of Clint Eastwood's catch phrase "Make my day!" Then I thought "Multi-Media Device". But after seeing your LOL smiley, I figured you must mean Miku Miku Dance:



Was I even close?

[STRZ]

made my day

(again)

[cybereality]

But then again, we could add yet another new definition for SMD: "Sufficient-Motion Device".

I vote for SMD standing for 'Sufficient Motion Device'.

[MaterialDefender]

Maybe it's just me, but Sufficient Motion Device somehow has a negative overtone for me. Like in 'well, it's not great, but sufficient.' I can't say I have a better idea right now though. I'm out of ideas for today, I guess...

[JanVR]

I have mainly used the term "Omni treadmill" to explain to people what locomotion is, since people understand what a treadmill does (allows you to walk in place), and omni is short for omni directional. I noticed that, if you want to bring the unknown to a large audience, it is better to use words that they understand rather than abbreviations of scientifically correct descriptions. Even though the term "treadmill" is not accurate for passive devices, it is still relevant for the broader spectrum of locomotion solutions, and a term that people understand. "OT" for omni treadmill might work well in that regard (and shorter than the common "ODT").

[geekmaster]

"OT" for omni treadmill might work well in that regard (and shorter than the common "ODT").

"OT" is also a common acronym for "Off Topic".

[cybereality]

On further thought, I think we should just stick with ODT. Even though its not totally accurate for passive devices, its probably the best thing we have right now and it encompasses the entire class of locomotion devices. Plus, if you Google "ODT VR" you get a whole range of relevant results. Much more than you would with a new, made-up term.

[geekmaster]

Sufficient-Motion is featured in this online book:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publicat ... index.html

I think it is important to preserve the older terminology in acknowledgement of prior art and to learn from it.

Perhaps we should call the older "Sufficient-Motion Walking Simulators" and our newer "passive ODT" devices by the combined term "Sufficient-Motion ODT".

At the very least, we need to acknowledge the older name for these devices, or we risk a loss of continuity of their place in history.

[2EyeGuy]

"Static Mobility Device" is a really terrible name.
Firstly, the term "mobility" makes it sound like it's a tool for disabled people to be able to move around, so people will misunderstand what it is. Also the term "static" sounds to me like you are sitting still or standing and leaning rather than actually walking in place. So I foresee lots of misunderstanding with that term.

I'd go with omni-directional treadmill, and no acronym.

[Zoide]

The static/passive terminology makes me think of the Wii Fit ("skate board" motions for walking) or of this proposal ("DDR" motions for walking).

Devices such as the Omni and the WizDish are certainly less passive than those, since you *are* actually making walking motions.

I do appreciate geekmaster keeping us informed of the proper historical terminology

[ftarnogol]

The static/passive terminology makes me think of the Wii Fit ("skate board" motions for walking) or of this proposal ("DDR" motions for walking).

Devices such as the Omni and the WizDish are certainly less passive than those, since you *are* actually making walking motions.

I do appreciate geekmaster keeping us informed of the proper historical terminology

Yes, very educated contributions

[WiredEarp]

I'd like to propose the term 'Foot Input Device', or FID.

The one common thing these devices have, is they all are trying to accept input from the feet and feet position. We could alternatively have a LID, Leg Input Device, but I think that for a device to be considered in this category, it should have to provide knee position sensing.

SMD is IMHO biting off too much - I feel it would be advantageous to separate the devices down into the parts of the body they support. I guess we could also be talking about TIDs eventually (Torso Input Devices '_)

[TemporalDrift]

what about amending "sufficient motion device > Static Motion Device?

[geekmaster]

what about amending "sufficient motion device > Static Motion Device?

Static means "not moving", so that would be a self-negating name.

If anything, it may be "constrained motion" (which really denotes something like an elliptical trainer). The key to these designs is that they allow JUST ENOUGH (i.e. sufficient) motion to enhance the immersive experience. Although redirected free walking like RedRovr supports is better, "Sufficient Motion" is sufficient (by definition) for many applications.

Using any other terminology that than what is already in use (by military and research institutions) only serves to obfuscate their connection in history, and may also make the new name apply to other devices (such as foot pedals).

Perhaps the best approach is to use part of BOTH names commonly in use (i.e. "Sufficient Motion ODT") as opposed to constrained full-motion (true treadmill or elliptical trainer) devices.

This discussion is not making much progress, so I plan to use my combined suggestion shown above (using "Sufficient Motion" to specify a specific type of ODT). Others may call them whatever they choose, at the expense of adding to the confusion instead of clarifying things...

All I am saying that these things ALREADY have a name (used AND PUBLISHED since 1996) and this name is STILL IN USE by research and military institutions. Calling a horse a cow does not make it "moo". Calling these "Sufficient Motion Walking Simulator" devices a "treadmill" (omni-directional or otherwise) does not make them a REAL "treadmill". Calling them a "foot input device" does not distinguish them from pedals already used in driving and flying simulators.

The pre-existing name is as clear as it can be, despite the fact that we have been MISusing the ODT name here (and elsewhere to some degree). What is wrong with using its real name, published since 1996)? "Sufficient" already implies "Omni-Directional" because less than omni is not sufficient for VR immersion. The original name also contained "Walking" to distinguish it from devices that aid sufficient motion of other body parts. Despite its cumbersome name, it clearly describes what it does. Without that, it does not matter what we call it. We could call it a BLORG device if we just want a unique name, but why? It already has a name, that not only is well-established, but also accurately describes its exact purpose (Sufficient-Motion Walking Simulator).

A lack of familiarity with existing terminology is no excuse to reinvent (or misuse) ill-fitting alternate terminolgy. Although these serve a similar purpose, the are not treadmills. And horses are not cows. Our habit of calling them ODTs does not have to persist, nor do we need to call them by an acronym already in common use such as SMD, which will only cause miscommunication. We have enough of that already.

Okay, I am done with this. It is not worth more of my time. You can call it what you will. I will call it by its true name. We can agree to disagree on that...

[colocolo]

When i talk to friends and family i often use the term
omni-directional platform (ODP). Sounds good, derives from the term
omni directional treadmill and makes a subliminal connection to ODT.

Edit: Also in other languages such as spanish, french ,german, italian,portuguese it would be almost the same.

plataforma omni direcional
plateforme omni directionelle
piattaforma omni direzionale
Omni direktionale Plattform
plataforma omni direcao

i think in many other european languages it would be nearly the same, since they contain latin words, but i cant speak east european languages.

[WiredEarp]

Things change, terms evolve. Perhaps "Sufficient Motion Walking Simulator" isn't a sufficient enough term to describe what we are talking about in some cases. For example, there is nothing in the description to easily describe specific variants of the technology. I think ODT is a good example - its a useful term to describe a specific type of "Sufficient Motion Walking Simulator" and it differentiates it from all other possible types. That is of course as long as we all agree on the correct definition of an ODT, and DON'T misuse it, which is currently a problem. Lets not get into the habit of calling every walking simulation device an ODT, or the term will lose its value IMHO.

I do think you have a good point with about the foot input device being indistinguishable from pedals - but lets not think that using more historical technical terms is changing the content or value of what we are discussing. If the community wishes to create a new, more specific term to describe certain walking input devices I can only support that, and I don't see reason why it cannot co-exist alongside the correct terminology, just as other hobbyist communities have their own terminologies to describe specific things, and combinations of things.

I don't personally feel that 'Sufficient Motion ODT', or static mobility device, or even sufficient/static motion device really describes ANYTHING particularly well - since the definition of mobility is the ability to move or be moved freely and easily it implies any device that allows you to move while stationary. Such an interpretation could even apply to things such as gloves etc. Surely the important part of the description is the walking simulator, so it seems wrong to cut that bit out. In fact, if we are going to create a new category, why not just call them walking simulators and be done with it? If the motion is insufficient, then why would we bother talking about them

[geekmaster]

... In fact, if we are going to create a new category, why not just call them walking simulators and be done with it? If the motion is insufficient, then why would we bother talking about them

Okay, "walking simulator" sounds fine with me. General purpose enough to describe WHAT we want it to do (important), while not restricting us to HOW it works (not important).

Perhaps we can make the a TLA (Three Letter Acronym): VWS = Virtual Walking Simulator. Not likely to be confused with "Virtual Weather Station" in our VR context.

On second thought, Virtual implies Simulator, so we could instead call it a Virtual Walking Platform (or VWP for short). Simpler and clearer, but one big problem with inventing a new TLA to describe our Virtual Walking "thingies" is that nobody will know what it means, and Google will not be particularly helpful either. Google thinks VWP = "Visa Waiver Program".

What to do?

[PalmerTech]

I like ODT, personally. I also like the term "Locomotion Platform", but I suppose that could apply to even a normal treadmill!

[geekmaster]

I like ODT, personally. I also like the term "Locomotion Platform", but I suppose that could apply to even a normal treadmill!

Okay, locomotion is even broader than "Walking", and because this is VR we probably do not even need "Virtual" or "Simulator" in the name. And it is much more of a "Platform" than a "Treadmill".

I like "Locomotion Platform". It is general enough to include both REAL treadmill devices AND our "slippery dish" devices. Thanks for that suggestion.

But even if we WERE to start using Locomotion Platform instead of ODT, I think ODT is here to stay, especially with all the posts here (and elsewhere) that have been (mis)using ODT to describe non-treadmill (i.e. slippery dish) devices.

[WiredEarp]

Hmm, I have to say, this is an interesting discussion to me. I believe in stripping away useless elaborateness in my terminologies, so originally I was more for the use of 'walking' than 'locomotion' (movement or the ability to move from one place to another:). However, after reading the definitions (walking: o move over a surface by taking steps with the feet at a pace slower than a run) I realised that it all depends exactly on what we are defining. Locomotion is more encompassing than walking, so I think that its more suitable. Good one Palmer - although I'd be even happier if someone could suggest a more commonplace word that meant the same thing.

The problem is, this still won't help with describing other things such as ODT's. They will remain as a subset name of LP's - and even LP's will need to be defined. I mean, is a balance board foot controller a LP? How about a set of foot pedals?

IMHO ODT's can describe a Wizdish, although I initially thought they wern't real 'treadmills' and thus couldn't describe one. Then I realised that the definition of treadmill seems to be in the process of change. Many web dictionaries define it as similar to Wikipedias: A treadmill is a device for walking or running while staying in the same place which contrasts with the strict definitions in the Oxford of a device used for exercise, consisting of a continuous moving belt on which to walk or run.. Since there is no belt, the Wizdish isn't a treadmill under the Oxford, but is under the popular usage. I think we should perhaps define it as something like 'a device that allows you to walk or run in place by moving your feet as though on a moving surface'. However, that definition doesn't necessarily exclude exoskeletal devices, which isn't optimal... but at least it excludes balance board controllers and other foot controllers. They could just sit under LP perhaps? If not, then what do we call those?

[geekmaster]

Hmm, I have to say, this is an interesting discussion to me. I believe in stripping away useless elaborateness in my terminologies, so originally I was more for the use of 'walking' than 'locomotion' (movement or the ability to move from one place to another:). However, after reading the definitions (walking: o move over a surface by taking steps with the feet at a pace slower than a run) I realised that it all depends exactly on what we are defining. Locomotion is more encompassing than walking, so I think that its more suitable. Good one Palmer - although I'd be even happier if someone could suggest a more commonplace word that meant the same thing.

The problem is, this still won't help with describing other things such as ODT's. They will remain as a subset name of LP's - and even LP's will need to be defined. I mean, is a balance board foot controller a LP? How about a set of foot pedals?

IMHO ODT's can describe a Wizdish, although I initially thought they wern't real 'treadmills' and thus couldn't describe one. Then I realised that the definition of treadmill seems to be in the process of change. Many web dictionaries define it as similar to Wikipedias: A treadmill is a device for walking or running while staying in the same place which contrasts with the strict definitions in the Oxford of a device used for exercise, consisting of a continuous moving belt on which to walk or run.. Since there is no belt, the Wizdish isn't a treadmill under the Oxford, but is under the popular usage. I think we should perhaps define it as something like 'a device that allows you to walk or run in place by moving your feet as though on a moving surface'. However, that definition doesn't necessarily exclude exoskeletal devices, which isn't optimal... but at least it excludes balance board controllers and other foot controllers. They could just sit under LP perhaps? If not, then what do we call those?

In medical contexts "ambulatory" (moving on your feet) is more commonly used to describe words like "walking/running/jumping/hopping/skipping/limping" than the more generic word "locomotion" (which can also apply to vehicles).

Although confusing to mom and pop VR enthusiast, from a strictly biological point of view, the most correct terminology for what these devices really ARE (in the context of VR) would be "ambulatory platform", or for a more general audience, "ambulatory simulation platform". But for the general public "common man" we need more common terminology, which devolves back to "walking simulation platform".

For the simplest possible generally understood name, we can use either "walking platform", or more broadly, "locomotion platform". I really see no other way, except for continuing to call it the technically inaccurate name (from a historical perspective) "Omni-Directional TREADMILL"!

I still think that Palmer's secondary suggestion ("locomotion platform") is the best possible (technically accurate AND generally understood) terminology to describe these devices in their current state of evolution. And from a marketing point of view, you could then make a play on words about LP = "Locomotion Platform" and "Long Play" (as in LP records).

There will always be borderline cases that either overlap or just plain do not apply. If not now, then at some later time, somebody will INVENT a device that makes our clear and simple terminology all confusing again. Such is the nature of language and technology. Our language must evolve to describe our technology. There is not easy way out that is robust enough to stand the test of time. We must periodically have discussions just like this one, so that we can adapt our terminology to fit the evolution of our technology.

Long Play Locomotion Platform has nice alliteration and cadence, with a playful limerick feel, making it fun to say and easy to remember. Am I right, or not quite?

[WiredEarp]

Well, I'm with you on the Locomotion Platform, anyhow

I think keeping ODT and adding LP as a term will be a positive move. Will foot controllers be considered Locomotion Platforms? Thats the big question. I believe they should, if their sole purpose is intended to be for movement through a virtual world.