page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
page 106
page 107
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
page 112
page 113
page 114
page 115
page 116
page 117
page 118
page 119
page 120
page 121
page 122
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
page 127
page 128
page 129
page 130
page 131
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
page 139
page 140
page 141
page 142
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
page 150
page 151
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
page 160
page 161
page 162
page 163
page 164
page 165
page 166
page 167
page 168
page 169
page 170
page 171
page 172
page 173
page 174
page 175
page 176
page 177
page 178
page 179
page 180

T he transition to an all- digital design workflow could arguably be the single- most important development in the automobile design process over the past two decades. What was once a brave and expensive plunge into the unknown has gradually become the accepted and even requisite technology that is used in the design and development of new vehicles. During this technology transition, the capabilities of computers and the new breed of computer aided industrial design ( CAID) software programs preceded the technology required to adequately display a full-scale virtual vehicle. Car companies were eager to get these new images from a designer's monitor and displayed in front of a development team in actual size. It was clear that if this goal could be accomplished, the potential payoff in development time and associated cost savings could be monumental. Time has proven that the vision of the early adopters of full- scale visualization has indeed delivered on its initial promise. But getting there hasn't always been easy. By Ted Woerner, IGI Designers prepare yourselves: Large- scale, high- resolution display walls have arrived The evolution of resolution

The Early Days: The 1990s The fundamental challenge in the early days of large- scale visualization systems, now known as " powerwalls", was to simultaneously achieve high resolution, a large screen size, and brightness. Doing simple math, it was easy to see that a single XGA ( 1024 x 768) or even an SXGA ( 1280 x 1024) CRT projector of those days could not possibly provide enough resolution to project an image onto a car- size screen with an acceptable level of sharpness. In addition, the 4: 3 aspect ratio of these projectors was not consistent with the proportions of a car and the low brightness level of CRT projectors was also a concern. The solution that evolved was to use two or more projectors to yield not only sufficient horizontal and vertical screen resolution, but also to achieve a display proportion more suitable for automobiles. This configuration also optimized the limited brightness level of the projectors by focusing the light from each on only a portion of the overall screen area. The remaining hurdle was how to parse out a section of the overall image to each projector while it appeared seamlessly across the screen. This became a very expensive proposition, but industry visionaries pressed on, convinced that the payoff was worth it. Multiple projectors, multiple challenges: 1990s - mid- 2000s As there were no UXGA ( 1600 x 1200) or HD ( 1920 x 1080) resolution desktop monitors, it wasn't even a simple proposition to view a 3D CG model on the desktop in the same aspect ratio as the powerwall display. Out of necessity, multiple desktop monitors became the accepted desktop previewing solution with the image spanning across them. Key to the effectiveness of the multi- projector powerwall was blending technology, which allowed a seamless transition of the projected image between projectors, undetectable to the eye. While logical in theory, in practice the results of blending projectors on the screen could be highly variable. Careful selection of screen material, screen gain and projector lenses were critical in the design of the system to