A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods

Euan Ross Coutts, Andrew Wodehouse, Jason Robertson

Research output: Contribution to journalConference Contribution

1 Citation (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1313-1322
Number of pages10
JournalProceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Jul 2019
Event22nd International Conference on Engineering Design: Responsible Design for our Future - Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Duration: 5 Aug 20198 Aug 2019
Conference number: 22
https://www.iced19.org/

Keywords

  • virtual reality
  • 3D printing
  • product modelling
  • prototyping

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this