FIATECH

1. Can we take a large 3D CAD asset model and convert it into a virtual world relatively quickly? Yes.
2. Can we add avatars, physics, weather and animations? Sure.
3. Can we integrate these worlds into existing information systems? No problem.
4. Can we convert to ray tracing, incorporate scripts and add complex weather conditions in less than an hour? Probably not.

What you see in a game is not what you will necessarily see in the engineering virtual worlds, especially for large asset models on low end PCs. Gaming developers are permitted to use tricks that are not available to us in the engineering world. Some tricks include:

• Control of the hardware
  Here are some hardware specs that might not work on a high-end game, but have to work in engineering VR: Windows PC, <2gig>
• No measurement: Re-sizing models to reduce memory usage
• You can’t walk around the distillation tower: Intermingling 2D back-drops for memory management
• The Drafter is King: The design architecture is created for both aesthetics and memory management (i.e. the drafter and not the engineer controls the number of complex design objects, splines, nurbs and etc.)
• No Updates: Conversion is done by the drafter at the creation of...
  
  
• The Age of 3D
  
  
  The relationship between utilization of advanced technology and the age group of the users is a topic that comes up quite often. People associate gaming with their teenagers and project this view to the industry. Well my friends, even grandma has an iPhone.
  
  In my opinion; scratch this topic off of the list of CONs on your benchmark sheets. It is very far from the truth.
  
  1) We’re not talking about gaming
  
  When looking at the technology remove the association to a specific industry when reviewing acceptance. In my observations people use a tool based on other factors including 1)added value to daily work, 2) availability of the tool/data and 3) ease of use. Then of course they go and brag to their kids about how fun work is :)
  
  2) Think -- time to learn and not age of student
  
  Attention span is limited for new technology when people have a lot on their plates. Learning to use the new tool should be easy and require very little time. My rule of thumb used to be less than 4hours, but lately even that amount of time is too much. People want it to be intuitive. Something you can pick up after a brief discussion with a colleague and not something that requires a trainer or a course.
  
  3) Value Value Value
  
  No matter the years of experience, no one wants to be linked to a tool that is going nowhere in the organization. People learn new technologies because 1) it makes them valuable to the organization, 2) has a broad appeal in the industry 3) it has the potential...
  
  
• Gamer meet the operator
  

  Here are some examples of gaming solutions used to optimize operator work flows on production facilities.

  When we talk about training on a plant many people if not most think of a classroom with simulated mechanical pieces. You know the giant valves and if you are lucky an actual vessel to play with.

  Virtual worlds take this to the next level because not only can you walk a variety of facilities, but you can explore the entire plant.In this virtual utopia you can set up complex scenarios with teams of people (i.e. the control room and field operator ) where no one gets hurt, but everyone learns.

  Here is a pretty simplistic video of using virtual worlds for familiarization on a plant.

  
  
  
  
• Presenting at Houston's 1st 3D Camp
  
  One of the things I spend time on is educating others on the benefits of interactive virtual worlds for engineering and operations.
  
  
  A more recent presentation was at the Houston 3D Camp. The camp was a broad brush of uses for 3D applications with everything from GIS to jewelry design. It was a good chance to see how different industries implement interactive 3D.
  Here I am in action [below].

  

  For more information on 3DCamp: http://3dcamphouston.com/
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• A picture is a 1000 words?
  If a picture is a 1000 words then a virtual space is + high multiple of that, that is, when it comes to articulating a thought. It is a moving picture that you control and interact with, which is better than a commercial --> My opinion.
  
  
  Here’s my reasoning:
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  Scenario animations in virtual worlds give users the marketing power of a commercial with the added interactivity:
  
  The beauty of a commercial
  1) Quickly present a well thought-out idea, or strategy.
  2) Define and target stakeholders/audience
  3) Outline a goal
  4) Set the mood of discussion
  5) Present the culture of the team/company
  6) And of course present the product
  
  
  With virtual scenarios you create the commercial using animations scenes then to get the above benefits plus a few more:
  
  1) Pause the virtual scene and interrogate other objects around it
  2) Link to information systems and broaden the scope of the discussion
  3) Develop adhoc "What ifs" permit questions from the audience to be more specific
  4) Encourage involvement -->
  A) Get more feedback,
  B) Increased brainstorming,
  C) Stimulate creativity
  
  
  Here is an animation scenario. It is a bit random. It shows various moving parts. In this case each part is animated using curves associated to the respective objects.
  
  Later, I hope to load a video with more specific use cases(?)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• It's not Green!
  I have posted in a long time and not for a lack of information or will, just a simple lack of time. This however allows me to make a very persuasive point about why many operators have not implemented interactive 3d technology into their daily work flow. Simply put: the information is not up-to-date!
  
  A common song in the industry among folks who have looked at interactive 3d and "seen the light" on the value proposition is the massive on taking of changing mentalities. For those of you not in the industry you would be quite surprised realize that oil and gas engineering in many ways is not that technologically advanced and in fact is one of the more conservative industries when it comes to change. There are plenty of good reasons for this 1) safety, 2)quality, 3)predictability (to name a few).
  
  On to my main point: Once a company decides to make a technological leap they want to ensure that the technology enhances quality by providing accurate and refreshed information. THUS although interactive 3D is interesting, if it is not up to date it can be "dangerous." Aah like my blog, which for several months lie stagnant.
  
  Interested people log on to feed their curiosity and appetite for information only to find out that the source of information is dusty and un-kept.
  
  SOOO, how do we keep the model green?
  
  
  Here is a short list:
  
  1) Standardize: Once you have sung the song of 3D and everyone in the organization has consumed the Kool-Aid, it is a good idea to detail the update workflow.
  
  Answer these:
  
  a. What does it take to update a model?
  b. Can our company do it or does this task require outsourcing?
  c. Does...
  
  
• Collaboration
  Here are two categories of collaboration technologies
  1) Teams work in the same environment for presentation, training and communication. In this example everyone is looking at the same machine through virtualization technology such as Webex, DCV or NetMeeting
  
  and
  
  2) Teams work on a centralized environment where data can be published and accessed for different user tasks. This is the technology available in servers, portals and interactive dashboards.
  
  I am not aware of any company that allows plant employees to walk the plant with a hand held wireless camera for remote meetings, because this is how I see 3D visualization transforming the operations and production world. Users would be able to interactively collaborate on an asset for tasks ranging from daily mundane activities to complex troubleshooting.
  
  What to look for?
  

  Requirements

  1. Rapid direct access to as-built data (including scanned data)
  2. Useable on low-end machines with limited graphics cards (this is the state of things in 2009)
  3. Remote access technology for both type of collaborative options (i.e. server based solutions)
  4. User friendly. It shouldn’t be harder to use than MS Word XP
     

  Basic nice to haves

  1. Collaboration solutions (redlining, bookmarking, commenting)
  2. Integration tools --> Ideally users can use the model to access data about any given piece of equipment and/or system.
  3. Tools to make things easier to find: hide/show/isolate

  Always ends up on the list

  1. Recording tools --> screenshots, video, save walked paths
  2. Highlighting
  3. Resizable movable object (i.e. avatar)
  4. Listing and grouping (equipment list, instrument and etc )

  Wow factor- Pick a couple of wow factors and send it out with the bid. You never know what will come back! Here are some interesting ones that I have seen that are actually feasible:

  • Weather scenarios- users want to incorporate environmental factors to improve analysis and interpretation....
    
    
  • 4D visualization
    I have often had conversations about the benefits of 3D visualization. Most of the time users seem to understand a clear value in project design visualization and 4d visualization. Then I ask the users how often they actually use 4D visualization? The typical response I get back to this is “rarely”. The biggest setback for 4d is the amount of time and effort required by the user to create a 4d model for a project. The 4D tools that I have seen are very straightforward if you are a design engineer or if you have had some form of IT experience. However, this is not always the profile of a project manager or even a project engineer. Add to that, the existing work load already involved in capital project management. So what to do?
    
    What is the ROI?
    
    Please contact me with corrections to these equations, as I may be missing something
    
    To calculate this ROI, Cost of Investment is the sum of
    
    1. The total cost of the software (taxes, maintenance, expected support, etc.) ,
    2. Time and money required for end user training and *support (Support is key since the users may require additional time after the training period getting support from the vendor. Estimate the cost of this time.)
    3. Time typically required by the project team to create the model and
    4. Time required to process the model (if required).
    5. Additional resources, if you expect to add a new resource for this activity
    6. Cost of new resources (you may need someone to create these models that doesn’t exist yet)

    The gain from investment seems easy :)

    1. Cost of estimated time saved
    2. Cost of estimated risk reduction
    3. Cost of estimated resource optimization
    4. Cost of improved data quality
    5. Customer satisfaction
       

    A note on Risk...
    
    

  • Laser Scan (side note)
    Since I mentioned laser scan in my previous article I wanted to add some early notes on brown-fields solutions that enable 3d visualization. I’ll elaborate on this later.
    
    What is laser scanning
    
    Here is an academic analysis if you are curious.
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/48/1/160/jpconf6_48_160.pdf?request-id=cc60bd96-61ad-4909-aa14-a9473733014b
    
    
    List of scanners
    
    Here is a list to start evaluating vendors.
    
    FYI: some things that stand out on this list are
    
    1) A company called Quantapoint uses a different type of technology in which they produce Laser Models™. Quantapoint defines Laser modes as, “a unique Quantapoint technology that integrates all laser scan data to provide detailed, high-definition 3D solid “models” of a facility.” Whether or not this technology is “better” than laser scan is up to the buy and the project parameters.
    

    
    2) Working with VRcontext I have worked with Z+F a company that boasts, “Z+F were one of the first companies to release a Phase Based Laser Scanner. We also invented the Worlds 1st Stand Alone 3D Laser Scanner.” From personal experience Z+F appears to be one of the most leveraged laser scan hardware companies with a vast network of service providers for scanning.
    
    I pulled this list from the Quantapoint site and I think it is a good starting questionnaire to use when starting a selection process for laser scan technology and vendor:
    

    
    — Relevant industry experience and understanding (articles, case studies, white papers, references)
    — Field crew with significant plant experience and safety training
    — A defined quality assurance programme and dedicated customer support
    — Is software included with the serviceor an additional charge?
    — Other services to help leverage the digitised plant, such as certification of tie point locations, confirming designs are clash-free, verifying spool and equipment are fabricated to design specification,...
    
    

  • When do we use interactive 3d? Project Visualization: Part I
    For clarification, I don’t plan to discuss 3d in the context of design for the purpose of this blog. There is plenty of work on this topic and for the most part it is more of a developing technology and not a next generation technology like interactive 3d (my opinion).
    
    So when do we use interactive 3d for engineering visualization? I guess the easiest way to tackle this question is to start at the beginning of the asset life cycle and work through each phase. In this article we will look at project visualization requirements. Eventually, I think I will need to offer a specific outline for capital projects visualization. However, for now we will generically review project visualization requirements.
    
    Project Visualization
    
    Although, I expect to further develop this topic over time, here are some of the basics. We can break this topic up into 5 main areas including; Design Review, 4d visualization, Collaboration, Simulation, and Mock-ups. My point here is that there are different user perspectives and needs at the project phase of the asset life cycle even for interactive 3d. In some cases the requirements for any of the individual topics are sufficient to justify more than one dedicated application. Thus, for example the user will get a 4d visualization tool independent to the collaboration tool. Below are some simple requirements lists to get you started assessing tools for Design Review. I guess you can call this the first recipe :).
    
    The format that I use is to start with a Q&A and then end the article with a simplified requirements list. Use the Q&A to help you understand common issues and how others have resolved these issues.
    
    Part I: Design Review
    
  • Why a "CookBook"
    After much conversation with different key people in the industry about how virtual reality and gaming technologies are impacting the engineering industry, I have decided to put together a "cook book" of concepts for engineering managers to consider when deciding to buy a virtual reality software tool.
    
    WHY A COOK BOOK?
    I have to thank Rick Jackson from Fiatech for this idea. He is also the reason that I have added about 3 more books to my ToDo list.
    
    The "cook book" concept is ideal because it allows us to look at a specific problems and put together a basic "recipe" of functionalities that can be used to help users make purchasing decisions. Users can use the “recipes” as a starting point for a checklist of requirements. In the blog and over this year, I hope to analyze "recipes" for;
    
    1) Project planning & 4D visualization
    2) Safety
    3) Integrated asset management
    4) Simulation
    5) Training
    6) Real-time visualization
    7) And a few more...
    
    The idea of the blog is to look at specific user requirements based on my own experiences and ideas from my colleagues. In effect I will outline what you should consider when looking for a solution and what do avoid putting emphasis on. Assuming that most of the people interested in this kind of information are new to the arena of VR (virtual reality) and gaming for engineering; I will try to keep things simple and straightforward.
    
    I hope this stimulates discussion around this relatively new concept to the industry and empowers users with the information they need to confidently assess this new generation of technology in our industry.