Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Evolution of Virtual Reality in Shipbuilding
Denis Morais, SSI, Victoria/Canada, [email protected]
Mark Waldie, SSI, Victoria/Canada, [email protected]
Darren Larkins, SSI, Victoria/Canada, [email protected]
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) has gone from being science fiction, to being realized in the research lab, to being
treated as a toy, to being used in practical applications, including shipbuilding. This paper examines
the history of VR technology as well as its current state. It then predicts the future of VR by analysing
the forces that have either hindered or promoted the implementation of Virtual Reality in the ship design
and construction industry. Challenges are identified as well as possible solutions, in the context of
technology, economics and organizational culture.
1. Introduction
The year is 1992. You are in a theatre to watch a science fiction/horror film starring Pierce Brosnan.
The movie is Lawn Mower Man. It opens with a black screen showing some scary, yet exciting
prophetic text:
“By the turn of the millennium, a technology known as VIRTUAL REALITY will be in
widespread use. It will allow you to enter computer generated artificial worlds as unlimited as
the imagination itself. Its creators foresee millions of positive uses- others fear it as a new
form of mind control…”
Fig.1: Lawn Mower Man: Collector’s Edition Promotional Poster Image
The movie then proceeds to show how Brosnan the scientist does experiments using virtual reality (VR)
on a hapless simpleton who mows lawns for a living. The experiments involve head mounted displays
(HMDs) and haptic bodysuits to provide touch sensations. VR is so perfect as a training medium that
the lawn mower man becomes a genius; he even develops the ability of telepathy. VR was thought to
be that powerful.
It’s just a movie, and much of it may seem laughable, yet at the time, it was not considered all that
unbelievable; VR was all the rage. In the early 1990s, there was a broad market for books, magazines
and newsletters about the subject. There was Ben Delaney’s CyberEdge Journal which addressed the
business aspects of virtual reality. MIT launched Presence to cover virtual environment research. There
was even a bimonthly magazine called PCVR which was a how-to guide for building home VR systems.
VR was everywhere, VR was the future, VR was going to transform industry, and VR was going to
transform life.
Companies were formed. Academic institutes were established. It was on the news and then, by the late
1990s, as far as the general public was concerned, the technology was hardly noticed. A search of
Google Trends, which goes back to 2004, shows a slow, but generally continuous decline in searches
for the term “virtual reality” until the spring of 2014, when suddenly, interest starts curving upward.
It’s difficult to establish exact numbers since the graph just shows a relative scale; however, it is clear
that the popularity has grown so much that most recently, VR headsets were a hot tech gift during the
last Christmas season (See the Dec. 2016 spike up in Fig. 2).
Fig.2: Google Trends: Search for Virtual Reality, January 2004 – March 2017
Virtual reality seems to be a good fit for what, in the tech world, is known as Amara’s Law. The law
states, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect
in the long run.”
This insight was first stated by Roy Amara, formerly President of the US-based Institute for the Future.
His concept was further expanded by Gartner Inc. and popularized in a graph called the Hype Cycle.
The Hype Cycle shows a new technology being greeted with massive hype and excitement. This
continues until people reach a peak of inflated expectations which crashes down to a trough of
disillusionment as they realize that they have overestimated the technology (at least in the short run).
However, just as all hope is about to be abandoned, the technology advances, prices come down, better
designs and applications are found, and slowly, people’s recognition and usage of the technology climbs
a slope of enlightenment to the plateau of productivity. This is a familiar story that can be applied to
many developments including VR. After the collapse in the late 1990s, VR is rising up again.
Fig.3: Gartner Hype Cycle
But how and why we got to this state of renewed interest and adoption is a fascinating story, as is the
likely outlook for the technology’s future. By looking at the forces affecting the adoption of virtual
reality, particularly in regards to ship design and shipbuilding, we will show where we think the
adoption of this technology is headed.
2. What we mean by Virtual Reality
First, we should clarify what we are talking about. As was pointed out in a paper at the very first
COMPIT in 2000, sometimes in the shipbuilding industry, people have used the term “virtual reality”
to mean things that are not really immersive; just mouse-controlled navigation through a non-
stereoscopic three-dimensional graphical representation on a monitor, Bertram (2000). That ability
alone has provided significant advantages and is quite an achievement. However, for the purposes of
this paper, we mean something more. The characteristics of immersive virtual reality include the ability
to seem like you are inside of a 3D scene, either by viewing through a head mounted display (HMD) or
by using 3D glasses to look at a projection on one or more walls. The virtual objects are displayed in
full scale so that it seems as if one is actually walking around or flying through a real world. Along the
way, you can interact with objects you see.
In other words, with VR, there is an illusion that you are experiencing a different reality, created by a
computer. This effect would be even stronger if it was enhanced by auditory, tactile and other non-
visual technologies. However, for the purposes of this paper, that is generally more than what we mean.
Still, anyone who has ridden a roller coaster using a modern VR headset knows that the effect seems
very realistic.
3. History of Virtual Reality
Here’s how we got to the technology of today. We could trace VR’s roots back to experiments with
stereoscopes such as the children’s View-Master toy. We could also talk about some simplistic head
mounted displays created in the 1960s. But the name Virtual Reality was coined by Jaron Lanier of the
Visual Programming Lab (VPL) in 1987. VPL then went on to develop a range of virtual reality gear
that used hand and head tracking to immerse users in a computer simulation. Note the prices:
Head mounted displays (HMD): Eyephone 1 HMD: $9400; EyePhone HRX: $49,000
Dataglove: $9000.
In 1991, we started to see virtual reality arcade games from Virtuality Group. In 1993, at the Consumer
Electronics Show, Sega displayed a VR headset for the Sega Genesis video game console. Not to be
outdone, in 1994, Atari showed off its own VR prototype to go with its Jaguar console. In a similar
vein, in 1995, Nintendo released Virtual Boy. Unfortunately, these VR related devices flopped when
they hit the market and Sega Genesis VR never even made it out of the prototype stage. There were also
VR failures from consumer electronics companies such as Tiger and Philips. By the late 1990s, most of
the VR related companies, institutions and publications were dead or on life support.
Fig.4: Sega VR Prototype for Sega Genesis
But here’s where things get interesting. Outside of the public eye, industry continued researching
applications of virtual reality using devices such as the CAVE wall projection based system from
Fakespace Labs. This research and experimentation was noticeable in the marine industry and continues
to this day. In fact, for years, some shipbuilders have been using VR as a regular part of business.
3.1 Virtual Reality in Shipbuilding Industry: COMPIT Papers
The marine industry’s interest in VR was apparent at the first COMPIT held in 2000. Furthermore, a
review of all the proceedings since then shows that with very few exceptions, almost every year the
conference has featured several papers on virtual reality. Admittedly, sometimes the papers are about
utilizing what one paper called “poor man’s” virtual reality, just 3D navigation on a monitor, Bertram
(2000). Still, it is interesting to review the history. Here is a sample of papers presented:
In 2000, there was discussion of using VR for CFD post-processing, Bertram (2000) and discussions
of how the Canadian Navy was using a virtual reality simulator for training on deep water manoeuvring,
Frutuoso and Soares (2000). In 2003, there was a paper on the advantages of using VR for engine room
design, Baier (2003). In 2005, a paper talked about using VR to enhance clarity in the design of ship
outfitting, Nedeß et. al. (2005).
The focus between 2000 and 2005 seems generally to have been on simulation and design review for
manufacturing. Then, in 2006 and 2007, papers start talking about using VR more for sales and
marketing and training. In 2008, there is a paper on how the Brazilian Navy was using animations of
assembly sequencing to visualize possible problems in production, Santos (2008). In 2013 there is talk
about shop-floor 3D, supply chain collaboration, and integration with other software, Larkins et al.
(2013). More recent papers have been talking about VR’s close cousin, Augmented Reality (AR).
3.2 Current VR Usage in shipbuilding
That brings us to today. Currently, if one surveys the actual usage of immersive virtual reality in our
industry, two major players are Virtalis and Techviz. According to their websites, they have the
following major shipbuilding clients:
Technviz Clients:
DSNS (French Navy projects)
Keppel FELS (Offshore builder)
Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (one of the world’s largest shipbuilders)
Virtalis Clients: (Software: Visionary Render & VR for CAD)
BAE (British Navy projects)
Dalian (Big Chinese shipbuilder)
Irving and Fleetway (Canadian Navy Project)
Companies use VR for design review, shop floor 3D, sales, marketing and training.
In our survey of the market, something jumps out at us. The companies that use the big cave style
immersive VR systems are typically involved in defence or in very large-scale shipbuilding.
Companies building workboats, ferries and yachts are not typically using VR on this level. It’s true,
they do often use programs such as Autodesk Navisworks and other CAD software’s associated
viewing applications. However, head mounted displays and virtual reality viewing rooms are not
typically used by anyone but large organizations, especially those involved with defence.
4. Back in Time: Consumer VR from 1990s until Oculus Rift
So why isn’t immersive virtual reality used more often in our industry? Before answering that question,
let us turn back to the consumer world because to understand what has happened in the last few years,
you need to look at what happened from the 1990s until the development of the Oculus Rift.
Let us go back in time and look at why consumer grade VR died in the late 1990s. We’ll get into more
details later, but right now, it’s simple enough to say this: Back then, VR was extensively promoted to
the masses and there was a receptive audience. Unfortunately, the quality of what people experienced
was disappointing, especially considering the high price and unique challenges of using VR systems.
Furthermore, there were not enough games and other supporting technologies to make people see value.
Virtual reality got a bad reputation, systems didn’t sell, there was less investment in the technology and
things fed back on each other in a quick death spiral. People heard the hype and were interested; when
they went to investigate further, they were let down by reality.
A business analyst might note that whenever a company is introducing a new product, that product has
to meet a certain minimum standard in order to be viable. Unfortunately with VR, the level of quality
required to be an MVP (minimum viable product) is quite high. This is because so many other things
have to be in place at the same time for VR to work. All the hardware (headsets, controllers, sensors
and computers) have to be at a certain level and so does a range of supporting software. As far as
consumers were concerned, in the 1990s, the supporting ecosystem to make VR viable was not in place.
4.1 Oculus Rift
And so, as far as the consumer world was concerned, VR languished. Then, in 2007, a 15-year old
named Palmer Luckey took up an unusual hobby; he began collecting old VR headsets. He would go
around buying unwanted HMDs that had originally been sold for $100,000. He acquired what would
become the world’s largest private collection of VR head mounted displays. He studied them and
decided to build ones of his own, but better.
Fig.5: Palmer Luckey, developer of Oculus Rift
In 2010 he designed an HMD that had a 90-degree field of vision, something previously unheard of in
the consumer market. But he kept tinkering, kept improving. Then, by chance, in 2012, in an online
forum, Luckey ended up chatting with famed video game programmer, John Carmack (lead
programmer of Doom, Wolfenstein 3D and Quake). Carmack was interested in Luckey’s homemade
headsets so Luckey gave him one. Carmack was so amazed by what he saw that he started promoting
it in the industry.
In June of 2012, Luckey formed a company called Oculus and developed more headsets. The quality
was so impressive that in March of 2014, Facebook bought his technology for $2 Billion. That is
when the Google Search and news stories about VR began going up again.
Meanwhile, other companies started scrambling to get in on the buzz. Google Cardboard came out in
2014. It was a foldable cardboard viewer that fit around an Android phone; the price was as low as $5
and 5 million units were sold in the first 19 months. In 2015 a more traditional headset called
Samsung Gear VR was released and in 2016, HTC released the HTC Vive.
5. Why the revival?
What is going on? One might be wondering what happened in the last few years to suddenly make VR
more viable. The answer is, the underlying technology improved so that with the right design, the quality
was able to go up and the price was able to go down.
Here is a good look at what happened. As Palmer Luckey was tinkering with parts from old HMDs, he
realized that computer performance follows Moore’s Law: the performance doubles every 18 months.
Therefore, the power he had to play with was 10s of thousands of times greater than when Jaron Lanier
had been working on a HMD back in 1987. Luckey saw the improvements in graphics cards and he saw
the improvements in cell phone screens. In other words, if he could put some stereoscopic lenses on top
of a new cell phone screen and hook it up to a powerful modern computer, he would have the beginnings
of a better HMD. You can get a glimpse of how much improvement there has been in computers, phones
and screens in recent years by looking at the figures below:
Fig.6: Performance: first iPhone (2007) until iPhone 6 (2014)
1998: Nokia 5110 2015: iPhone 6s Plus 84 x 68 pixels 1080 x 1920 pixels
65 pixels per square inch 401 pixels per square inch
Shows 90 characters Shows 514 Nokia Screens!
Fig.7: How many Nokia Screens could fit on an iPhone 6s?
The chart and images above show massive improvements. And as the quality was going up, the cost
was going down. Consider how the price for consumer-level HMDs has dropped since the 1990s. As
of March, 1 2017, the Oculus Rift Headset is $499 USD and the associated Touch Controller is $99.
The price of Jaron Lanier’s inferior technology in the 1990s was over $18,000!
6. Consumer VR still not ready
Unfortunately however, VR still does not appear to be ready for mass adoption by consumers. Even
though in March 2014, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was willing to spend $2 Billion on virtual reality,
in February of 2016 he said to Business Insider that the technology remains a long way from reaching
the mass market; in fact, he thought that it would take at least 10 years.
There are several logical reasons for Zuckerberg’s caution. There are several challenges that still need
to be better addressed. First of all, even with the massive price reductions, the cost of VR equipment is
still higher than most consumers want to pay to play video games. Not only do you need a special
headset and controller, VR requires a more expensive computer than most people have. Then, there are
several other factors which you don’t think about until you actually start getting serious about VR: the
headsets are bulky and not comfortable for long periods of use; they mess up people’s hair and even
their makeup. Being tethered to a machine with cables is a tripping hazard and you have to spend quite
a bit of time creating a controlled environment in an open space without furniture in the way. There are
also sensors to set up. People do not want to do all this work in their homes. All of this is a significant
cost and hassle, and what do consumers get out of it?
If quality is acceptable, the price is high, but if the price is low, the quality is poor. A lot of people were
excited to see that they could leverage their phones to get virtual reality cheaply via solutions such as
Google Daydream View ($99) or Samsung Gear ($69.99). Unfortunately, these are mostly just a
novelty; these products do not support scenes as complex as most people would like.
As for all consumer VR in general, the newness of the technology means there are few games or
applications available. The fragmentation of the market further makes it harder for consumers to know
which platform they should pick. All of this leads to a Catch-22: less games and applications are
developed, the price stays too high, and there is less of a reason for average consumers to spend on VR.
It is true that virtual reality games and devices experienced an exponential increase in sales in the 2016
Christmas season. However, that was still dwarfed by sales of other technology. Zuckerberg is probably
right; even though there have been exponential improvements, as far as consumers are concerned, VR
still has a ways to go before it will become ubiquitous.
7. Industry will Drive Enhancements
On the other hand, the situation is totally different in the business world. In fact, we believe that industry
will lead the charge in VR development from here. This is in contrast to what we have been used to
seeing over the past decade where technology for the consumer market (e.g. cell phones and tablets)
has been driving development and later spinning off into business uses.
Remember, unlike with the total collapse in the consumer market in the late 1990s, industrial usage of
virtual reality never went away. A lot of the challenges and hassles that plagued products for consumers
were not present, or at least, not felt as strongly in the business world.
When a business uses VR, it is not doing it for casual entertainment; it is to solve real business
challenges. In the COMPIT papers over the last 17 years, it has repeatedly been noted that VR increases
quality and understanding during design reviews which prevents rework, increases efficiency in
production, and reduces costly errors. Still more benefit can be derived for training and sales. Therefore,
there is a potential for significant return on investment; buying a VR system for an industrial application
is not just something one does for amusement.
This seriousness means that people working on high value designs are a bit more willing to accept a
certain amount of annoyance such as tethering, bulky headsets, and even more prosaic problems such
as mussing up one’s hair and makeup with an HMD. Of course, these types of things still are concerns;
they just do not have quite as high a weight as when people are merely using VR for fun.
As for the issue of computing power, this is far less of a concern for industry. It may be true that only
1% of consumers have PCs that can support VR. However, if a company is doing engineering, this is
not the case. If a company is using CAD programs, it probably already has powerful VR capable
computers and is used to buying machines of that calibre. Admittedly, depending on the VR solution
deployed, they will probably need a separate machine for each graphics display node; however, buying
high powered computers is not a shock for engineers.
Another relative non-issue for industrial use-cases is the availability of applications. Programs such as
Virtalis Visionary Render or the software from TechViz already address several industry desires and
support input from a wide variety of CAD programs. It is nothing like the situation with consumer VR
where consumers are unwilling to buy VR hardware until more games are developed.
8. Challenges
Nevertheless, the fact that VR has not already been more widely adopted for business uses demonstrates
that there still are serious concerns, particularly in the shipbuilding industry.
8.1. Challenge: Lack of perceived benefit vs cost
First of all, there is the price or rather, the perceived benefit vs. the cost. It is hard to justify spending
money on virtual reality if it is not thought to be worth it. Below are some numbers:
With the price cut at the beginning of March 2017, you can buy an Oculus Rift and an associated Touch
motion controller for $598 USD. It is advertised as being plug and play but when engineering managers
go to experiment with it, they are shocked to find out that they probably need software for $17,000 (on
top of a $4000 computer). And that is just the beginning. If you start looking at wall systems, things
start to really add up. On top of the price of the high-end computer (actually, multiple high-end
computers, depending on the collaboration scenarios), there is the cost of the projector. A projector with
the necessary lumens and a resolution of 4K could be $150,000! If you start adding displays on the floor
and multiple walls, or if you want multiple HMDs, you need more computers, software and projectors.
On top of that is the construction (and preparation and dedication) of a special VR room itself.
Therefore, for many applications, the price of a virtual reality system can run well into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. That is an order of magnitude more than the type of price that people these days
expect to pay for anything to do with computers and electronics so this can come as quite a shock.
You also have to remember that the upfront dollars are just one “cost” of VR. Virtual reality always
involves at least some form of additional overhead, e.g. the hassle of putting on headsets and meeting
in a special room etc. Thus, in order to justify the usage of VR, there probably has to be significant
additional benefit to using it over the status quo. Indeed, the bigger the net benefit, the better.
8.1.1 Solution 1: 10x better
A good way to think of this is to use the 10x concept promoted by venture capitalist and PayPal founder
Peter Thiel. He only invests in companies that offer a solution that is ten times (10x) better than the
current way of doing things. Applying this concept to VR, we can see that in many scenarios, even if
utilizing VR was a natural extension of current processes, the advantages would likely be perceived as
being too small to create widespread adoption. Using VR for routine clash detection of geometry would
probably fall into this category so we would not expect shipbuilders to be sold on VR for that.
On the other hand, using VR for sales and marketing would provide a dramatically better experience
than looking at plain pictures. That is because VR allows better communication, especially with non-
technical people who, by using VR would have a way to navigate through a ship model naturally. Virtual
reality would thus be more likely to be adopted here.
8.1.2 Solution 2: Ability to do new things
Other cases where we see increased likelihood of adoption involve situations where VR lets a
company do things that it might not even be doing at all currently because the difficulty and cost are
too great. With VR, it is much easier to do things such as examinations for physical usability. Is a
space too tight? Is there enough clearance? How wheelchair-friendly is a design? Doing tests in
virtual reality is the next best thing to trials with a physical mockup, but far easier. This would seem
to be a clear win for virtual reality.
8. 1.3. Solution 3: Ease of Trialability
Yet all of the above cost/benefit analysis presupposes the ability for shipbuilders to easily try out VR.
They need to easily perform trials so that they can get a better feel for where they might use it in their
organization and better understand the effort involved. Trials allow them to find where the 10x benefits
are and give managers ideas for new things their organization could do. Indeed, the ability to easily try
out technology before one buys it (“trialability”) is a well-known significant factor affecting the
successful diffusion of innovations, Rogers, (1983).
Here is where the excitement in the consumer space over the last few years fits into the picture. Vendors
of VR systems for industrial applications have noticed a scenario repeatedly occur; engineering
managers have increasingly been buying the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift to experiment. The price is low
enough that it seems relatively risk-free to “check out”. It allows engineers to “get their feet wet” and
play a bit with the technology so that they can more fully understand the potential benefits vs. the costs.
Wise VR vendors have started to take advantage of this new receptivity and it seems that this could be
the beginning of increased adoption in our industry.
8.2. Challenge: Need for an Up to Date Model
Unfortunately, in many use cases for VR in shipbuilding, e.g. design reviews, you need to have an up
to date model; VR has to be in sync with CAD. This presents a problem because unlike with many other
industries, in shipbuilding, there is constant change.
If you are just bringing over the geometry from CAD into VR, this is less of a problem. However, if
you need the metadata for all the parts (and many scenarios do), this is usually a challenge. You typically
need to go through a manual export and conversion process and make sure all the metadata is included.
This procedure needs to be done every time there is a change which, as we have noted, happens
constantly. Therefore, if you have to do this every time you want to use VR it is a major amount of
work.
And the problem is compounded once you start dealing with VR customizations. What we mean by VR
customizations is adding data in VR. For instance, to make a scene more realistic you might change
material properties. This helps when showing an owner or sales prospect what their ship might look
like. Similarly, to help with training or simulation, you might add animations to make a door open or a
valve turn. You would not want to lose all those customizations every time you updated the CAD model
because recreating these would take a lot of effort.
Indeed, the inability for software solutions to handle change is so significant that it often relegates VR
usage to scenarios that change less often.
Fig.8: Customizations in VR software can be used to add animations for training, e.g. valves turning.
8.2.1. Solution: VR Must be a Natural Extension of CAD and Current Workflows
The solution to the challenge of change (and other problems, for that matter) is to make VR a natural
extension of CAD and current workflows. In other words, working in virtual reality should be a
seamless process. VR should be a natural way of viewing and interacting with the CAD data (including
all properties, not just geometry). It should always be accurate and up-to-date and should be able to
handle change without costly overhead. No special VR experts should be required to convert data into
the system and no special CAD expertise should be required for users of the VR program to easily find
the data. The entire process should be intuitive.
A key to realizing this solution would be linkages between the parts in CAD and VR. While in VR, you
would always be working on a current CAD model and you would be able to add animations and
enhance the scene, yet these changes would persist, even when the CAD model changed.
The linkages would bi-directional. This would allow you to be able to make annotations in the VR
program and these would not just be sent to a notepad file, they would actually feed back into the CAD
system so modellers would know of any changes that needed to be made. Everything would be as clear
as possible and as simple as possible. This would make VR a natural extension of current shipbuilding
software and thus speed the adoption of virtual reality in our industry.
12. Conclusion
In summary, we have witnessed continual improvement in computer performance and screen resolution
since VR’s short-lived consumer heyday in the 1990s. More recently, we have seen VR once again
explode into the public consciousness, including in the consciousness of shipbuilders who previously
considered virtual reality to be priced out of reach. From here, we see industry leading the charge in
terms of development because hassles that would deter consumers are of relatively smaller weight in a
business context.
The issue regarding perceived benefit vs. price can be addressed by finding scenarios where VR
contributes ten times the net advantage of the status quo, or by scenarios involving capabilities that a
shipyard never considered possible before. While performing this cost/ benefit analysis, the ability to
easily try the technology (“trialability”) will be crucial.
Many scenarios in shipbuilding will present a special challenge because they require an up to date model
and our industry involves constant changes to a design. Building a VR solution that is tightly integrated
with CAD via linkages will be a way of creating a solution that is a natural extension of CAD and
existing workflows. This will lead to increased adoption of virtual reality in our industry.
References
BAIER, Christoph, (2003), Practical Application of Virtual Reality in Engine Room Design, 2nd Int.
Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Hamburg, pp.278-283
BERTRAM, V. (2000), Virtual Reality Applications for CFD Postprocessing, 1st Int. Conf. Computer
and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Potsdam, pp.35-44
FRUTUOSO, M.S.; SOARES, C.G. (2000), 3D Virtual Environments for Ship Manoeuvring
Simulation, 1st Int. Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Potsdam, pp.438-448
LARKINS, D.; MORAIS, D.; WALDIE, M. (2013), Democratization of Virtual Reality in
Shipbuilding, 12th Int. Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Cortona, pp.316-326
LÖDDING, H.; FRIEDEWALD, A; HEINIG, M.; SCHLEUSENER, S. (2011), Virtual Reality
Assembly Planning in the Shipbuilding Industry, 10th Int. Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind.,
Berlin, pp.253-263
MORAIS, D.; LARKINS, D.; WALDIE, M. (2011), Driving the Adoption of Cutting Edge Technology
in Shipbuilding, 10th Int. Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Berlin, pp.523-535
NEDEß, C.; FRIEDEWALD, A.; KERSE, N. (2005), Increasing Customer’s Benefit using Virtual
Reality (VR) – Technologies in the Design of Ship Outfitting, 4th Int. Conf. Computer and IT Appl.
Maritime Ind., Hamburg, pp.113-122
ROGERS, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations 3rd Edition, Free Press-Macmillan Publishing, pp.21-
233
SANTOS, C.V.M.S, (2008), Production Simulation Applied to Military Shipbuilding, 7th Int. Conf.
Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind., Liège, pp.302-313
