Real Design of a Virtual Landscape Designing and building a Landscape in Second Life

Stef Gard; Marisha McAuliffe School of Design

Queensland University of Technologies Brisbane, Australia s.gard@qut.edu.au

mb.mcauliffe@qut.edu.au

Abstract—3D Virtual Environments (VE) are real; they exist as digital worlds with the advantage of having none of the constraints of the real world. As such they are the perfect training ground for design students who can create, build and experiment with design solutions without the constraint of real world projects.

This paper reports on an educational setting used to explore a model for using VE such as Second Life (SL) developed by Linden Labs in California, as a collaborative environment for design education. A postgraduate landscape architecture learning environment within a collaborative design unit was developed to integrate this model where the primary focus was the application of three-dimensional tools within design, not as a presentation tool, but rather as a design tool. The focus of the unit and its aims and objectives will be outlined before describing the use of SL in the unit. Attention is focused on the collaboration and learning experience before discussing the outcomes, student feedback, future projects using this model and potential for further research. The outcome of this study aims to contribute to current research on teaching and learning design in interactive VE’s. We present a case study of our first application of this model.

Keywords; Landscape design, Second Life, Shared virtual environment, Collaborative Design,

I. INTRODUCTION “The nature of designing is complex. Complexity is

inherent because the object, building, landscape or environmental situation is not isolated but exists through relationships with people, activities and environmental components” [1]. Thus, designing in practice, and as a practice is characterized by the co-operation of multiple participants from different disciplines. It is almost impossible to design and create objects, environments and spaces using only the knowledge of just one discipline or person. Nederveen argues that “Large and/or complex design projects cannot be executed any more by a single designer, since expert knowledge on various domains needs to be combined to develop a successful design” [2]. Therefore, collaboration in design is still increasing as a result of the emergence and growth of “virtual project teams” with geographically distributed participants that mainly communicate over the internet.

Teaching and learning in design and engineering disciplines using computer-based technologies within a higher education context is not unusual. As part of the Design degree at Queensland University of Technology students are required to undertake digital technology foundation units which focus primarily on skill development and digital communication such as presentation. There is an expectation that the applications of such skills are evident within specific design and engineering projects further within their four year degree.

Although such units are useful in the teaching of particular technologies, this has limited students in the exploration of the technology within the discipline to allow students to explore new ways of learning their ‘craft’ – in this case, designing.

McAuliffe [3] argues that because technology is advancing with ever-increasing rate, designers are responding to modern technology by creating more ‘intelligent’ and technologically sophisticated built environments. In the design of these environments, traditional media, such as two-dimensional drawings and cardboard models, and more recently, digital technology, such as virtual three-dimensional programs, are used as visualization tools in the architecture and design industries, rather than as a tool for ‘testing’ design. Whilst visualization is still inherently important in terms of visual expression, client understanding and visual ‘connection’ with a project, it is as important to also utilise these tools to understand a “future” environment during the design process. Traditionally, due to the cost constraints, digital representation in the design development stage of a project was rarely viewed as a viable option as a “pre-visualization tool”, however, in design education in such fields as interior design, architecture and landscape architecture, software in modelling and presentation has become a more viable/economical option.

This study aims to examine the role of VE’s within the designing process; in this case, in a postgraduate landscape architecture context. Bermudez and Klinger illustrate that “Healthy disciplines remain tolerant of a state of flux by constantly questioning the inclusion/exclusion, import/export, and collaboration/isolation to/from new ideas, new techniques, new disciplines, and new technology” [4].

2009 15th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia

978-0-7695-3790-0/09 $25.00 © 2009 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/VSMM.2009.17

73

2009 15th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia

978-0-7695-3790-0/09 $26.00 © 2009 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/VSMM.2009.17

73

Therefore, the intent of this research is to investigate the potential of VE’s such as Second Life as a ‘designing’ tool in a collaborative design environment as well as its potential as a visualization tool. That is, if a designer is able to ‘test’ and explore a ‘future’ design through the use of interactive virtual environments there may be the potential to gain insight into, and design more appropriately for, the end user’s requirements.

II. FUNDAMENTAL OF SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENT

A. Previous method using VRML We use the term “Synthetic Environment” to describe an

interactive digitally generated three-dimensional representation of an environment or conceptual design of such. Traditionally, this unit utilized a virtual world, developed with input from a number of disciplines including architecture, landscape, interior and industrial design and urban development. This form of representation permits various professional groups the opportunity to contextually assess the design concept.

“Fundamental of Synthetic Environment” has been taught in QUT’s School of Design for many years with the aim of introducing students to the use of 3D modeling as an interactive design tool. As a faculty based elective, this advanced computer visualization unit allowed students and staff to explore the impact and relevance of this technology from multiple perspectives and provided an overview of Synthetic Environments with a focus on its application to Design as a tool for enhanced communication within a design process.

The unit was essentially divided into two parts: the theory component aims to assist students in understanding the theory of Synthetic and Virtual Environments, and the application component aimed to provide the necessary skills for the creation of virtual worlds and the collaboration within those worlds.

Using CAD authoring software such as CosmoWorld, AutoCAD and 3DMax, students were creating three-dimensional (3D) objects that they then shared to assemble a virtual world. Different kinds of interactions were then scripted in using Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML); the virtual environment was then tested on a large virtual reality (VR) display during a series of design critiques (a common form of assessment and feedback within the design disciplines) involving the students and invited guests. The design was reviewed following each critique, and the 3D models subsequently up-dated.

VRML scripting allows for free navigation and a range of interactions with the 3D digital models such as testing different design solutions. The possibility of interacting with a 3D environment and seeing the model in an immersive environment gave the students opportunities to test their design in an environment that simulated a real life environment. However, the primary disadvantage of this method was the necessity to transfer the data from the 3D authoring software to the VR environment and to manually add scripts to implement the desired interaction functions.

Figure 1. VR Display

B. New concept using Second Life Digital online worlds such as Second Life (SL) form a

natural medium for design as they provide visualization, real time creation and manipulation of 3D shapes and can be used collaboratively through the use of an avatar. This approach offers some promises as it provides an environment similar to the real world in terms of design activities and communication where users can create and manipulate objects in a shared workspace while being physically remote and they can communicate either by voice chat or text messages.

Whilst using SL as a tool in design practice and design education is not common, it is not a new concept either. Brouchoud is a freelance virtual architect and founder of Crescendo Design, a studio specialized in creating innovative, cost effective architecture and strategies for virtual reality platforms such as Second Life and OpenSIM. He asserts that SL is an excellent tool for visualizing design concepts in a virtual environment as virtual architecture is “less rigid”, and is far more “flexible” than physical architecture. He argues that architecture “...should be driven by the end-use, in an ongoing and constantly evolving design process that doesn’t have an arbitrary ‘end’. Virtual architecture doesn’t have to shape us…we can and should keep shaping it [5]

In terms of education, SL is used increasingly for collaborative projects in various disciplines internationally. However, a literature and in-world search has revealed little evidence of designing, or design process, within SL and built environment education.

In 2008 QUT purchased an island in SL with the intent to develop a range of teaching and learning activities. We saw this as an opportunity to involve our students in the development of 3D content for the island while providing a more convivial environment for their learning activities.

It is in this context that a group of 17 students from Landscape Design took part in the unit with the brief to build a virtual landscape on QUT Island in SL.

C. Second Life SL is a continuous and persistent world that attempts to

model the surface of an Earth-like world in a reasonable life-like way. The sun rises and sets, objects fall under the effect of

7474

gravity, trees and grass blow in the wind and clouds form and drift [6].

Based on a grid system, where each grid is a computer representing 6.5 hectares, SL was launched in 2003 and within a year had grown to 1240 hectares and by December 2008 to 36080 hectares.

Users referred to as “Residents” are represented by a fully customizable virtual body called an avatar who can walk, run, and even fly or teleport; avatars can manipulate the land and create all sorts of shapes to which they can apply textures and colors. The only limitations are set by land owners who can choose who they allow to build on their land. SL provides two types of land: A region on the mainland or a private piece of land called an island. Land is purchased using SL’s own currency, the Linden Dollar.

QUT Island, like all land in SL was provided as a flat barren piece of virtual real estate with no constructions on it. It is also a private island with invitation access only.

Figure 2. The Original QUT Island

D. Interface SL is available to anyone with a computer and an Internet

connection for free; its interface is more like a video game than that of 3D modeling or CAD software and yet it offers some of the same functionalities but in a much friendlier environment. The presence of the avatar as an extension of the user in the synthetic world, increases the feeling of immersion and provides designers with a unique sense of being in the environment that they are designing, allowing them to experience that environment instantly without the need to produce or read plans, sections, elevations, etc..

Users don’t just see their own avatar but they also see their colleagues, teachers and visitors in the form of avatars and are able to interact with them including asking for opinions and advices. They can also see the work in progress of other groups of students

E. Collaboration With conventional software it is not possible for two

persons to be working on the same object simultaneously; in shared virtual environments such as SL however this is not only possible but is also enhanced by some very simple tools

for building content and communicating; people in completely different locations can be working together on the same object and discuss its design through voice or text chat. Since the construction site can be access at any time, teams and individuals are not necessarily online at the same time and therefore a protocol had to be put in place to simulate the real world coordination of a building project.

Figure 3. Students designing and building a path together

The QUT island was divided into 14 equal regions and one portion of the island was allocated to the class. This portion was further divided into 4 areas, each to be designed and constructed by a group of 3-4 students. Each group was asked to choose a theme of their choice and to then design a space around that theme. One group was asked to consider the access to the site as this was through a single point of entry to the class’s region. All the groups had to collaborate on the site navigation as this had to flow naturally through the entire area. Due to the nature of the shared environment there was nothing to stop students from one group from interacting with the design of another group; thus creating the need for good communication not only between members of the same groups but also between groups.

Figure 4. QUT Island divisions

7575

The students were left free to organize their groups but they were required to use the university online teaching space (Blackboard) to document the organization process. This type of collaboration required coordination of each group as well as inter-group coordination. Initially the students did not make full use of this system which resulted in chaos on the “construction site” for example, one student did not like the work another pair of students and in a few minutes deleted a few hours worth of work replacing it by a design that was later rejected by the rest of the group. They soon realized that SL does not have back-up and restore functions and that the only way to avoid redundant work was to discuss the design ideas and plan their implementation using a form of permanent records. In a similar way, one group wanted to have a river flowing into a pound in their region. To achieve this they had to lower the ground which in effect lowered the surrounding area and “flooded” their neighbors. Following these initial problems, the students decided to have weekly meetings in SL and to keep minutes that they published on Wiki. The teaching staff only provided guidance through advice.

F. Unit organisation 1) Modelling exercise

For the first 2 weeks, classes took place in the computer lab on campus but in the weeks following all the subsequent classes took place on line. A very small number of students used the university computers while all the others took part in the classes through a remote connection. The initial timetable for the unit stated that classes were scheduled for 3 hours on Tuesday nights; this was abandoned very quickly and replaced by half-hour online meetings organized at varying intervals where the teachers could provide design feedback via the avatar, in world.

Figure 5. Teacher – Student interraction

In a conventional design teaching and learning situation, teachers provide students with a brief describing the tasks. Once the student has produced some work the teachers are able to analyze it and then provide a feedback. In SL, the teacher can “supervise” the construction and interact with the student in real time, giving feedback in the form of advice or even demonstrating “good design” by creating it in front of the students then asking them to advance the design or idea.

In week 6 the students were requested to physically attend a design critique taking place in the visualization lab in the

school of design. The three meters wide curved screen provided the students with an opportunity to experience their design at a large scale, in an immersive environment. A number of guests had been invited both physically and online, and students were asked to present their design by taking visitors on a “walk” through the site. The process of presenting to a live audience was not new to them however, having to “walk” through the means of their avatar instead of flicking through slides emphasized the usability of the proposed design and highlighted some defects that are not always obvious on printed material. For example students realized that some path were too narrow when their avatar had to cross through another avatar.

Figure 6. Design Critique

Following this process, students re-visited their design solution and spent the following weeks finding solutions to the problems discovered during the critique and implementing the necessary modifications. At the end of the semester, another live presentation was organized, but this time the students were physically in the computer labs while a number of guests were online. Each student had 10 minutes to invite the guests to follow directions to a specific portion of the landscape and to present the design solution chosen for that particular aspect. The presenter was equipped with a wireless microphone in order to communicate vocally to the guests, who could ask questions but only through text chat. This decision was made because if everyone was given the option to talk, it would have been difficult to control the flow of communication.

This method of presentation proved difficult for the students who had no problem communicating to the live audience but became “disembodied” from their avatar loosing their sense of presence in the VE and starting to use gestures in real life that the online guests could, for obvious reasons, not see. As a result some guests became lost in the VE and when they tried to use the chat mode to ask for directions, it became obvious that VEs do not provide the same sense of direction that human beings are used to: one cannot say “go north” or “go south” nor can a person (via avatar) call and be located by voice direction. SL offers the option to teleport to a place but the time needed to invite the lost avatar and wait for the teleport to happen, proved too much for most guests who became disinterested and left.

2) Journal Editorials Apart from the building of QUT Island, students were also

given a range of articles on theories on VR; a new article was released fortnightly on Blackboard QUT’s online teaching interface and students were asked to reflect on the article by submitting a response in a discussion board.

7676

Each student can see and comment on peers responses. It was found that interaction in this case did not work as well as in the past; this might be due to the ease with which they could interact in SL.

We are planning to change this for future classes and have a range of articles available in SL, which are more interactive.

3) Reflective Case Studies An important aspect of learning is reflection. As

constructionist theorists, such as Kolb and Kolb [7] propose, experiential learning is a process of the creation and re-creation of knowledge through four learning modes: experiencing, reflecting, thinking and creating, where experiences are the basis for reflection and from reflection, learners develop abstract concepts which are then applied to new experiences. Self-reflection is a part of this process where students record their thoughts about an experience of a phenomenon; writing about one’s experience contributes to deeper learning and engagement with a subject, since it gives students the opportunity to clarify and reflect on their thinking. Self-reflection may describe events, experiences or issues associated with learning and the process encourages students to reflect critically on a process and the development of such over time.

This aspect of assessment in the unit sought to provide an experiential learning opportunity for students by firstly, enabling them to engage in the experience of the sense of presence that they experienced in SL and the collaboration and interaction between each other in the design process; secondly, reflection on these experiences; and finally, an opportunity to create new abstract concepts for further experience in designing and the design process in the context of virtual environments.

The reflective case studies were designed to be a process of self-reflection, where the students were to reflect on their own experience in learning and developing knowledge in designing. As the students were to be designing within a virtual world, the lecturers of the unit were interested in examining the students’ interaction with digital technology and their engagement with designing in these virtual environments, and their collaboration with each other while they were designing. This process of self-reflection was where they were to write freely about their experience.

The case studies were delivered at a specific time of the semester, in line with certain activities and posted via an online teaching and learning site. It was an assessable item.

The first case study was posted via an online learning site and focused on their experience when interacting with their peers in SL. They were also asked about their perception of “being within” or “being outside” of SL. The responses were varied with some students discussing their experience as a group: “We help each other, share new knowledge and items we collect. We are building a new house as a team which is a success. We help each other get to places and teleport. It is a fun atmosphere” and some as individuals expressing an emotional response to being within SL: “I find interacting with my classmates quite easy within Second Life, as I know who they are, however interacting with other people in the virtual world is quite different, I feel uncomfortable and unsure when

interacting with unknown avatars as i am not sure who I am talking to. I think that this is going to be quite difficult for me to overcome and I am looking forward to be on the safe haven of QUT Island. It is interesting to see how people portray / represent themselves in the virtual life - their alter ego.”

With regards to the experience of designing in each other’s groups and tasks, as asked within case study two, some students comment on the experience being a positive and “fun” but also that “…it has a practical purpose and application and is therefore perhaps not as addictive as it may be if you were using the world for fun and an escapism. When the QUT world is available I feel this addiction may become more time consuming as the virtual world is molded into something of my own imagination”. The second case study focused on students’ experience in designing with their group in SL and ability to complete tasks when inworld.

As the unit progressed, the lecturers began to notice certain behaviors in the design process, where some students were ‘designing on the run’ inworld rather than the traditional way of designing using a cyclical process of planning through analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Therefore one of the questions “Do you design, then build; or do you design as you build in Second Life®?” provided feedback that was enlightening. Some students indicated that designed both ways: We have rough design idea of what we want to achieve in our section of QUT Island, but as to the specifics there is a level of design as you build, because what may look good on plan doesn't quite fit well into the landscape. Also at the moment we are limited by our ability to construct what we have in the design” While some compared real life designing with the same experience in SL and while they could design ‘on the run’, testing as the design developed:

“I think so often in real life, I design then build. This is because I have a predetermined base/site with existing contours and services. It is not logical to design as you build, because there is a cost associated. Building in real life is very final. I would design first to ensure that the built form will be functional, safe, aesthetically pleasing, cost effective, livable. I would spend great time choosing materials and colours and textures and plants to make sure I was happy in purchasing them.

In SL however, I have the opportunity to create objects for free. I can delete an object if I don’t like it, or build on it to make it better. I can move it's location, change its scale etc. I don't have this luxury in real life. Also, in SL, it is easier to design as you build. The computer responds/builds as quick as I can type/click and my brain can keep up with it. I can use my imagination to create a design and there is no need to draw it, I can create it right there and then.

Following the week 6 design ‘crit’ where the students presented their work to the authors via an avatar both inworld and in real life, case study three was released. This study was designed to gain an understanding of the students’ experience of presenting their progress and work in progress via a virtual environment. Some students indicated that the scale of being inworld and presenting via the large curved screen was a factor in presenting their design:

7777

“Walking through the site as a visitor rather than a designer proposed a whole new genre to viewing, analyzing and describing our site and design. I could have easily mentioned the faults and the 'to be done' sections, yet to describe the site from an alternative perspective was hard. When viewing our design from plan view I could easily illustrate the movement, orientation and objectives of our design. However, experiencing the site on ground level made me disorientated and overwhelmed. I knew exactly where I was and what I was looking at, however to explain that to a visitor with little to no knowledge of the context left me wondering where to begin” Yet, others indicated that it was a positive experience where the students felt that presenting via the large screen “…enabled you to not just interact with Second life, but to a degree 'experience' it. The curved visual format places the viewer within the second life 'world' when viewed from the central position”.

G. Technical conciderations Most recent computers would meet the minimum

requirements to install and operate SL as the software is not very demanding

While the computers at QUT all met those requirements it was found that the display driver would randomly fail unless the resolution was lowered to 800x600 and while this is below the minimum recommended by Linden Lab it proved to be sufficient and solved the problem.

The only real limitation the lecturers came across was the number of objects; 3D objects built from primitive shapes called “prims” where each parcel or region has a limited number of prims allocated depending on its size. QUT island has a limitation of just over 13 thousand prims and because it is divided into 14 regions, each region should only use 950 prims. These limitations were intentionally not mentioned to the students so as not to limit their creative process, and as a result more than 4000 prims were used by the 4 groups leaving only 9000 for the other 13 regions of the island. SL does not provide any functionalities to archive, export or to restore objects created within the environment, which means that to allow other projects of similar size to take place on the island, all or part of the current work will need to be deleted.

H. Conclusion It is planned that future projects in teaching and learning

will move from the standard Second Life interface to the OpenSims interface which will allow even more freedom and flexibility in terms of area size, number of primitive elements and functionalities. This opens-up a range of inter-faculty collaboration in a range of areas including teaching, learning and research. In the meantime “Fundamentals of Synthetic Environment” will be offered again in Semester 2 as an elective to students from Architecture and Industrial Design, and while there are a number of technical issues to be resolved, such as primitive count, lecturers are looking forward to more amazing 3D buildings and objects being created on QUT Island.

Figure 7. Entry Section

Figure 8. Tropical Garden Section

Figure 9. Water Feature Section

7878

I. References [1] D.J. Smith, P. S. Sanders N. Demirbilek and A. Scott. Designing

together: a collaborative experiment in design methodology within a multi-disciplinary environment. In K. Holt-Damant and P. Sanders, Eds. Proceedings Third International Conference of the Association of Architectural Schools of Australasia (AASA). 2005

[2] PS. Nederveen. Collaborative Design in Second Life. Proceedings Second International Conference World of Construction Project Management 2007. Prof. H.A.J. de Ridder, Prof. J.W.F. Wamelink (Eds.) © TU Delft, The Netherlands

[3] M. B. McAuliffe. Considering the role of presence in the conceptual design of interior architectural environments. Proceedings Presence Conference. Barcelona, Spain 2007.

[4] J. Bermudez, K. Klinger. “Digital Technology and Architecture” ACADIA Whitepaper. 2003

[5] http://archsl.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/the-architecture-of-virtual-education/ (accessed 15/04/09)

[6] Ondrejka, C. R. (2004). "A Piece of Place: Modeling the Digital on the Real in Second Life." Retrieved April 6th 2009, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=555883.

[7] A.Y. Kolb and D.A. Kolb, Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (2) (2005), pp. 193–212.

7979