A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods

Euan Ross Coutts, Andrew Wodehouse, Jason Robertson

Research output: Contribution to journalConference Contribution

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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1313-1322
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 (ICED 2019) - Technical University of Delft, Delft, Netherlands
Duration: 5 Aug 20198 Aug 2019
Conference number: 22
https://www.iced19.org/

Fingerprint

Augmented reality
Computer monitors
Product design
Product development
Virtual reality
Computer aided design
Decision making
Feedback
Engineers
Glass
Communication

Keywords

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

Cite this

Coutts, Euan Ross ; Wodehouse, Andrew ; Robertson, Jason. / A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods. 2019 ; Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 1313-1322.
@article{b839af211f6a4399a5682b570ff7a5ba,
title = "A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods",
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.",
keywords = "virtual reality, 3D printing, product modelling, prototyping",
author = "Coutts, {Euan Ross} and Andrew Wodehouse and Jason Robertson",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1017/dsi.2019.137",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "1313--1322",
number = "1",

}

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 journalConference 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 -