Abstract
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 1313-1322 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 31 Jul 2019 |
| Event | 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 2019) - Technical University of Delft, Delft, Netherlands Duration: 5 Aug 2019 → 8 Aug 2019 Conference number: 22 https://www.iced19.org/ |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- virtual reality
- 3D printing
- product modelling
- prototyping
Cite this
}
A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods. / Coutts, Euan Ross; Wodehouse, Andrew; Robertson, Jason.
Vol. 1, No. 1, 31.07.2019, p. 1313-1322.Research output: Contribution to journal › Conference Contribution
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods
AU - Coutts, Euan Ross
AU - Wodehouse, Andrew
AU - Robertson, Jason
PY - 2019/7/31
Y1 - 2019/7/31
N2 - Prototypes are a common feature of many product design and development endeavours. An ever widening range of prototyping options are available to designers and engineers. May particular options be superior to others, or more appropriate for particular endeavours? This paper reviews current literature on the nature of what constitutes a prototype and the benefits they offer to the discipline. They principally facilitate communication, aid learning, help gain and provide feedback, inform decision making and generally provide superior design outcomes. In order to determine if any particular manner of prototype is preferable for achieving these benefits a comparative study of some of the contemporary prototyping methods is subsequently conducted: A 3D printed prototype (physical prototype), a CAD prototype (represented using a computer monitor), an augmented reality prototype (represented using a tablet device) and a virtual reality prototype (represented using a stereo projector and polarised glasses). The results indicate that while all provide benefits, overall the physical prototype performs best and the augmented reality prototype performs most poorly.
AB - Prototypes are a common feature of many product design and development endeavours. An ever widening range of prototyping options are available to designers and engineers. May particular options be superior to others, or more appropriate for particular endeavours? This paper reviews current literature on the nature of what constitutes a prototype and the benefits they offer to the discipline. They principally facilitate communication, aid learning, help gain and provide feedback, inform decision making and generally provide superior design outcomes. In order to determine if any particular manner of prototype is preferable for achieving these benefits a comparative study of some of the contemporary prototyping methods is subsequently conducted: A 3D printed prototype (physical prototype), a CAD prototype (represented using a computer monitor), an augmented reality prototype (represented using a tablet device) and a virtual reality prototype (represented using a stereo projector and polarised glasses). The results indicate that while all provide benefits, overall the physical prototype performs best and the augmented reality prototype performs most poorly.
KW - virtual reality
KW - 3D printing
KW - product modelling
KW - prototyping
U2 - 10.1017/dsi.2019.137
DO - 10.1017/dsi.2019.137
M3 - Conference Contribution
VL - 1
SP - 1313
EP - 1322
IS - 1
ER -