I work at InfiniteZ; hopefully I can clear some of this up.
The main point is: at no point do the pixels physically leave the screen. If the user's view of a virtual object slides off the screen, he won't be able to see it; likewise, if the screen is occluded by a real object (like the user's hand).
However, within these limits, the system provides a true virtual reality experience: the user can peer around virtual objects as if they were real, while directly manipulating them with the stylus. With a conventional CAD interface, that kind of task would require the user to stop editing, tweak the view camera, then switch back to editing again -- but with virtual reality, this context switch is unnecessary.
I think they're hoping for broad, Chuck, but at least for the near term, I expect it to be niche. It's cool stuff, but pricey and likely beyond the need and comfort zone of many CAD jockeys and engineers.
Some thoughts: There was probably some embellishment in the "ad" (like seeing the object in front of the user's face). However, there is still room for some 21st century 'magic'. Just because you see what looks like a souped-up WACOM tablet doen't mean that **that** device is creating the images. Note: This is called "virtual hologram" - this means real holgraphy (lasers, whatnot) is probably not employed (not for $6000). I imagine the image area is very large (and possibly curved - not a requirement). The Start Trek WACOM Tablet is probably an image that is drawn on the big screen. This gives you an "area of surprise" when you see objects rendered beyond its edge. This also gives you a psychological constraining area. For instance, if the tablet is 9"x9", you might have objects floating five or ten inches beyond the borders, but you wouldn't expect to see the object rendered eight feet away. So the disappointment that occurs when you drag something past the edge -- and it disappears -- still exists, it's only 30 inches away from the edge of the "tablet." This gives you a nice "play area" around the tablet. The tablet which doesn't exist - it's an image on the big screen. Nice magic. Too bad the video took it just past "likely."
And nice find, Beth! Can't wait to see one of these bad boys for real.
Not only is the illustration impossibly good, but impossible. 3-D hardware providers should be held to task for the missrepresentations they use in promotional pieces. It's impossible to show/project/view a 3-D image beyond the edges of the screen.
We see this all the time on TV when 3-D TV manufactures show a viewer watch an image fly off their TV screen and over their sholder. Impossible!
What is presented here is a totally bogus artist rendering, selling a lie.
This is fantastic! This isn't really engineering related, but years ago I was working on a very large Army project and this is exactly what they wanted. Of course, their interest was in looking at terrain before engaging the enemy. We saw a system at MIT that would project a hologram in space. This was 20 years ago, mind you. It did not require any special display technology, so you could walk around the hologram. On the other hand it took a large Connection Machine to compute the hologram (this would take the place of the graphics card) and had some very complex lasers and other devices to actually project the image.
In the engineering realm, I have seen some demand coming for 3D printers. This would be a better approach, I would think, in that you can interact with and modify the model. There would still be a place for the 3D printer, but this might be cheaper and more functional.
Visualization is definitely a core part of today's CAD offerings, Alex, and a critical element at that. And you are correct in pointing out that these capabilities are being folded in because of exponential leap in processing performance. Today's workstations, even high-end laptops, are perfectly capable of displaying life-life 3D images whereas in decades past, you need highly specialized workstations to do so.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.