Commkit: Should You Augment or Virtualise Your Reality?
In this Commkit, Thibaut Roger (University of Bern/NCCR PlanetS, Switzerland) investigates how to incorporate VR and AR in your outreach and communication.
Read article in the fully formatted PDF of the Europlanet Magazine.
Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have overcome significant technological challenges in recent years and the use of both systems is growing rapidly. There are many potential applications for both VR and AR in scientific outreach. Together, let’s explore the pros and cons of each technology, so you can identify which of AR or VR is best suited for your own outreach and communication projects.
How AR and VR work
VR participants use a headset projecting a digital world in which they can navigate by moving themselves in the real world. Sensors track the movement of the head, hands (and in some cases eyes), to update the virtual word projection in real time and provide a wide range of interactions. AR usually uses the integrated cameras of smartphones or tablets to enable participants to see interactive digital elements embedded in the real word. AR can also use sensors from the device (if any) to track movement and/or nearby surfaces.
Cost and accessibility
For a full experience, VR needs its own dedicated device, which may come with a high price tag. As an inclusive outreach tool, VR may, therefore, be more suitable for museums, exhibitions or events where the equipment can be provided to offer a short, high-quality experience.
An AR experience can be enjoyed from home by the public through smart phones, although AR also has many potential uses in events, exhibitions and museums. However, one of the limitations of AR is that it may not be compatible with all smartphone operating systems.
Developing a VR experience can be expensive, as it requires powerful gaming engines, such as Unity or Unreal Engine, and skills with 3D assets and graphic design. Although 3D skills are also useful in developing AR, with some basic familiarity with graphic design and free AR-making and viewing software, e.g. Adobe Aero, you can create a good AR experience yourself.
What to choose
Cost and accessibility should not be the only criteria when choosing between AR and VR – your topic matters too. Exploring a Moon-base or Mars surface? VR is probably the way to go. Understanding the size of a satellite compared to a scale model? AR can show them side by side.
Left: Participants used VR to explore a Mars base in an exhibition in the European Parliament. Right: The virtual exhibition ‘From Mars to Earth’ (frommars2earth.org), created by the Natural History Museum and Europlanet, enables users to interact with 3D AR models related to Mars exploration, including the Perseverance rover. Credits: Europlanet.
In my experience, VR may have a higher entertainment value, while AR may have a stronger educational impact. This is also linked to the duration of use. Participation with VR will be limited to the number of headsets you have available and the duration of your VR experience (short experiences of less than 5 minutes are advisable as they also help to prevent motion sickness, a drawback of VR). AR can be used by anyone with a suitable phone, for as long as they want.
VR is a personal experience, with individuals wearing their own headset, whereas AR can be a shared experience with multiple people watching the same screen together. As a rule of thumb, VR may be better suited to exploring environments, and AR for interacting with objects.
In summary, both systems have their strengths, so your goal should guide your choice.
Planetarily yours,
Thibaut
If you have science communication tips and tricks to share, join the conversation on Discord.
