The use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) visual displays for discrete-event simulation (DES) has become very popular within the simulation community in recent years. This paper presents results from surveys of users of 3D and 2D simulation applications regarding their views of the impact, benefits and drawbacks of 3D displays. The results indicate that 3D displays can often be more effective than 2D displays in communication, verification and validation, and experimentation. This can lead to a better project outcome with an improved understanding of the real system and a better solution for the decision maker. The main drawback is the additional cost, time and complexity of building the model. Potential implications for modeling in general are the importance of being able to relate the model to the real system and of involving the decision maker in the modeling process.
AkpanIJ. Virtual reality, 3D visualization and simulation in decision support. In: SarrafzadehMPetratosP (eds), Strategic Advantage of Computing Information Systems in Enterprise Management. Athens: ATINER, 2010, pp. 31–44.
2.
BarnesM. An introduction to Quest. In: AndradottirSHealyKWithersDNelsonB (eds), Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, 1997, pp. 619–623.
3.
HlupicV. Simulation software: an operational research society of academic and industrial users. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, 2000, pp. 1676–1683.
4.
McAllisterDF. Stereo Computer Graphics and Other True 3D Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
5.
MilgramPRastogiAGrodskiJJ. Telerobotic control using augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN’95), Tokyo, 5–7 July 1995, pp. 21–29.
6.
TanriverdiVJacobRJK. VRID: a design model and methodology for developing virtual reality interfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM VRST 2001 Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and TechnologyBanff, Canada: ACM Press, 2001, pp. 175–182.
7.
BellPCO’KeefeRM. Visual interactive simulation – history, recent developments, and major issues. Simulation1987; 49: 109–116.
8.
KirkpatrickPFBellPC. Visual interactive modeling in industry: results from a survey of visual interactive model builders. Interfaces1989; 19: 71–79.
9.
BellPCAndersonCKStaplesDSElderM. Decision-makers’ perceptions of the value and impact of visual interactive modeling. Omega - Int J Manage Sci1999; 27: 155–165.
10.
RohrerM. Seeing is believing: the importance of visualization in manufacturing simulation. In: JoinesJBartonRKangKFishwickP (eds) Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2000, pp. 1211–1216.
11.
FumarolaMVerbraeckA. multiple worlds in simulation games for spatial decision making: concept and architecture. In: MasonSJHillRRMonchLRoseOJeffersonTFowlerJW (eds) Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2008, pp. 2555–2562.
12.
KamatVRMartinezJC. Dynamic 3D visualization of articulated construction equipment. J Comput Civ Eng2005; 19: 356–368.
13.
KamatVRMartinezJC. Validating complex construction simulation models using 3D visualization. Syst Anal Model Simulat2003; 43: 455–467.
14.
KamatVRMartinezJC. 3D visualization of simulated construction operations. In: JoinesJBartonRKangKFishwickP (eds) Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2000, pp. 1933–1937.
15.
WallerAPLadbrookJ. Experiencing virtual factories of the future. In: YücesanEChenC-HSnowdonJLCharnesJM (eds) Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2002, pp. 513–517.
16.
FischerMLaroqueCHuberDKrokowskiJMueckBKortenjanM. Interactive refinement of a material flow simulation model by comparing multiple simulation runs in one 3D environment. In: Proceedings of the European Simulation and Modelling Conference (ESM 2007), EUROSIS, 2007, pp. 499–505.
17.
DangelmaierWFischerMHuberD. Aggregated 3D-visualization of a distributed simulation experiment of a queuing system. In: MasonSJHillRRMonchLRoseOJeffersonTFowlerJW (eds) Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2008, pp. 2012–2020.
18.
AkpanJIBrooksRJ. Experimental investigation of the impacts of virtual reality in discrete-event simulation. In: KuhlMSteigerNArmstrongFJoinesJA (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 1968–1975.
19.
AkpanJIBrooksRJ. Practitioners’ perception of the impacts of virtual reality on discrete-event simulation. In: KuhlMSteigerNArmstrongFJoinesJA (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 1976–1984.
