Diffusion of Innovation: Case of Co-Design of Cabins in Mobile Work Machine Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In spite of the fact that the authors have corrected almost my earlier remarks, figure 9 does not have any proof. Moreover, the axes of the time and usage co-ordinate system (figure 9) don't have units. I mean e.g. the beginning date of caves or mini caves or HMDS in the time coordinate axis? What are the units in the usage coordinate axis? Please, correct it.
Author Response
We have impoved langua of the paper and figure 9 has been completed with axes. I have chosen to use period 2006-2016 as in the other figures. Therefore share of HDM devices is not so significat as in previous version of this figure.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents ways for diffusion of innovations and mobile work machines context. It describes developments made using virtual reality for collaborative work contents in one particular application area these last years. The main application purpose is communication between different members of a design team. Even if this can give some illustrations for VR based collaborative design, focusing only the area of cabin of mobile work machines is a specific application area in prototype design, a particular field among all the VR application domains.
The next part is dealing with the technological development with a review of technical implementations. According to several types of setups. Technical comments on CAVEs, Mini-CAVEs and HMDs have been improved and comparisons are relevant. The dissertation about economical aspect is ok as it is true that costs have decreased in the late decade. The “General attitudes and expectations” part is also relevant.
These comments can be generalized to other areas as VR cost and performance evolutions impact them in the same way. Finally, the paper is a good illustration of VR evolution in the last decades and can give readers elements to manage their own evolution policy.
Author Response
We have improved the language of our paper. I addition, the figure 9 has been updated with axles and with focus on period 2006-2016 as in the other figures of this paper has.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper shows a "historical" overview of the improvement of VR technologies. It is not clear if something was developed or the manuscript is just a theoretical overview.
Here are some critical questions:
What represents the yellow curve in figure 1?
Page 8, line 239: "Nowadays, a virtual space can be integrated as a part of a conventional meeting room with a minimal space cost [16]" is written. But the 16th reference was released in 2006, more than a decade ago. How could start the sentence with "nowadays"?
In spite of the fact that figures (6, 7, 8) show some data, the question is where those data come from. Pieces of evidence and data are missing, which are the bases of the figures (6, 7, 8).
Figure 9 also does not have any proof. Moreover, the axes of the time and usage co-ordinate system (figure 9) don't have units. Has any usage experiment or measurement done to prove that figure?
To sum it up, the manuscript needs extensive rewriting.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents ways for diffusion of innovations and mobile work machines context. The paper describes developments made using virtual reality for collaborative work contents in one application area in last past years. The main application purpose is communication between different members of a design team. Even if this can give some illustrations for VR based collaborative design, focusing only the area of cabin of mobile work machines is a too much specific application area in prototype design, a particular field among all the VR application domains.
The next part is dealing with the technological development with a review of technical implementations. According to the CAVE part, there are some errors: CAVE device were developed before using GPU targeted for video games, in several domain including virtual prototyping, before 2000’s, in a more expensive way for the computer part of the setup. Simplifying the CAD-models before rendering them is always a main issue. Dissertation about Mini-CAVE is more correct, presenting how they can be efficient at lower cost and how they are popular for companies. Part relative to HMD is also correct, except that converting CAD-models to game environment can remain a problematic issue.
More generally, multi users VR solutions have been developed for several years, even for collaborative VR.
The dissertation bout economical aspect is ok, and it is true for more apps areas that Costs (soft, hard, space, Model conversion) have decreased. The General attitudes and expectations part is also ok, even one can be more optimistic about the golden future of VR in lots of domains in a close future.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper shows a "historical" overview of the improvement of VR technologies. It is not clear if something was developed or the manuscript is just a theoretical overview.
Here are some critical questions:
What represents the yellow curve in figure 1?
Page 8, line 239: "Nowadays, a virtual space can be integrated as a part of a conventional meeting room with a minimal space cost [16]" is written. But the 16th reference was released in 2006, more than a decade ago. How could start the sentence with "nowadays"?
In spite of the fact that figures (6, 7, 8) show some data, the question is where those data come from. Pieces of evidence and data are missing, which are the bases of the figures (6, 7, 8).
Figure 9 also does not have any proof. Moreover, the axes of the time and usage co-ordinate system (figure 9) don't have units. Has any usage experiment or measurement done to prove that figure?
To sum it up, the manuscript needs extensive rewriting.
