Assessment of 3D Models Placement Methods in Augmented Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an experiment on the level of reliability in the use of AR in visualizing BIM models to support AECO processes. The article addresses a complex and crucial issue with respect to the usability of AR as a working tool. The work is quite complete, although some important aspects are missing, on which the authors are suggested to pay more attention and further study.

1) the graphical-illustrated apparatus of the article is in need of revision, because the images are of low resolution or have missing grammar/graphic errors. Instead, it is believed that an explanatory graphic support is very important in the discussion addressed, which not only better systematizes the experimental parts but more importantly shows in detail the differences in the results obtained in the AR experiment;

2) the focuses of the research are two: on the one hand, to show the deviation between the virtual model in AR and the real one, to validate the process of using AR.  On the other hand, to show a comparison mainly between two systems, Vuforia and ARCore, indoor and outdoor. Although some results achieved in experimentation are described, there is a lack of systematicity in the experimental phase. It is recommended in this sense precisely in the experimental phase to illustrate a block diagram on the different steps of the experimentation and describe them in more detail. For example, authos talk many times about deviations between real and virtual model, without ever specifying in detail what the metrological pipeline of comparison. Also should be decided whether the comparison between the ARCore system and Vuforia covers a specific paragraph and is addressed more systematically, graphing how one and the other may be useful and under what specific conditions.

It is believed that these passages are indispensable for the best understanding of the text and reading of the research. 

Apart from these general observations, some specific points are noted in detail:

- Figure 1 needs to be fixed a bit in graphics, text position, commas, arrows, text errors (see "marching" template) etc;

- Within the section "3.2. Development of MAR applications" a concise schematic version of the main steps of experimentation is suggested, which also allows for comparison of different experimental strategies;

- Line 354 "This script" goes ahead in the text, I think it's an error;

- Figure 6 - Implementing alignments/texts;

- Figure 9 - Influencing factors of marker-based methods-can you identify a level of different weights or a hierarchy of weights?

- Figure 10 - It does not make sense to me that the basement is detached from the building;

- Figure 11 - According to the authors why does the variation not follow a rule, although it approximates a linear trend? Make a judgment from a critical point of view....

- "After the quantification of placement deviations, we conclude that the placement accuracy degrades up to 1.5 cm with the complexity of the model (the whole model or an entity of the model)" - Is it possible to assume an intermediate condition between a single element and the whole building to better understand the relationship between complexity and placement accuracy?

- Table 2 - It would be better to explain in detail how the deviation between the real model and the model in AR is calculated. Has been a comparison between the coordinates made? Also it is not clear if the authorse defined a-priori point of views (indoor or outdoor) for such comparison.

- Line 612 "in manuel placement" - mistake, please correct

In general, a thorough rereading of the entire text is suggested to avoid errors.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our paper entitled: ‘Assessment of 3D Models Placement Methods by Augmented Reality’. Their thorough reading of our manuscript as well as their constructive suggestions helped to improve the quality of this paper. We have enhanced the content based on the comments outlined by the reviewers. Please note that the modifications are highlighted in the manuscript as follows:

• Comments of Reviewer 1: The modifications are highlighted in green color.
• Comments of Reviewer 2: The modifications are highlighted in blue color.
• Comments of Reviewer 3: The modifications are highlighted in brown color.
• Common comments of Reviewer 2 and 3 are highlighted in red color.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript attempts to present a workflow for evaluating methods of BIM AR placement.

1.      What is the definition of AR placement method? It seems to be missing from the manuscript.

2.      The title looks strange

3.      No reference in the Abstract section

4.      I am not sure how BIM fits in the process.

5.      Scan BIM, explain more and provide more details on how to handle the point cloud, have you encountered any difficulties? How to solve it?

6.      What is the novelty of this study?

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our paper entitled: ‘Assessment of 3D Models Placement Methods by Augmented Reality’. Their thorough reading of our manuscript as well as their constructive suggestions helped to improve the quality of this paper. We have enhanced the content based on the comments outlined by the reviewers. Please note that the modifications are highlighted in the manuscript as follows:

• Comments of Reviewer 1: The modifications are highlighted in green color.
• Comments of Reviewer 2: The modifications are highlighted in blue color.
• Comments of Reviewer 3: The modifications are highlighted in brown color.
• Common comments of Reviewer 2 and 3 are highlighted in red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the paper has value for the technical aspects of AR placement 

regrettably, BIM remains underexplored: as a symbolic representation it affords abstraction that could help with both visualization and placement; as an integrated representation it contains more information than the visual / geometric aspects explored here (e.g. material specifications, time stamps for scheduling etc), including revealing what's hidden behind the visible surfaces 

all these aspects of BIM require attention, otherwise the title and goals of the paper should be reduced to AR and geometric representation coordination (BIM becoming incidental) 

two acronyms used: AR and MAR

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First, we would like to thank the reviewers for reviewing our paper entitled: ‘Assessment of 3D Models Placement Methods by Augmented Reality’. Their thorough reading of our manuscript as well as their constructive suggestions helped to improve the quality of this paper. We have enhanced the content based on the comments outlined by the reviewers. Please note that the modifications are highlighted in the manuscript as follows:

• Comments of Reviewer 1: The modifications are highlighted in green color.
• Comments of Reviewer 2: The modifications are highlighted in blue color.
• Comments of Reviewer 3: The modifications are highlighted in brown color.
• Common comments of Reviewer 2 and 3 are highlighted in red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

authors addressed my concerns. 

Reviewer 3 Report

clear improvement over previous version