Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

WaveWalkerClone: VR Sensing & Pilot-Wave Simulation

Updated 8 February 2026
  • WaveWalkerClone is a dual system integrating a camera-free radar-based VR obstacle sensing platform with a computational simulation of bouncing droplets driven by pilot-wave hydrodynamics.
  • The VR module utilizes mmWave radar, GPS/IMU sensor fusion, and edge computing to achieve centimeter-level obstacle detection and real-time environmental mapping.
  • The pilot-wave simulation applies the damped Mathieu equation and impulse-driven wave dynamics to recreate non-Markovian behavior and quantum-like phenomena.

WaveWalkerClone refers to two distinct technical systems in contemporary research: (1) a camera-free, radar-based obstacle sensing and visualization system for outdoor virtual reality (VR) environments; and (2) a computational reproduction of the hydrodynamic “walker” system, where bouncing fluid droplets self-propel through feedback with sub-threshold Faraday waves. Both implementations exemplify state-of-the-art techniques for detecting, modeling, and interactively visualizing dynamic environments—one in embodied computing, the other in macroscopic pilot-wave hydrodynamics. This article systematically details both interpretations and their core methodologies.

1. Radar-Based Outdoor VR: System Architecture and Sensing Platform

WaveWalkerClone, as realized in outdoor VR research, constitutes a multimodal real-time sensing pipeline built to maintain user safety and preserve environmental awareness during fully immersive VR experiences without cameras or explicit environment mapping (Nargund et al., 1 Feb 2026).

At its core, the system integrates:

  • Millimeter-Wave (mmWave) Radar: Texas Instruments IWR6843AOP FMCW radar, operating at fc60GHzf_c \approx 60\,\text{GHz}, with B4B \approx 4 GHz bandwidth yielding range resolution ΔR=c/(2B)3.75\Delta R = c/(2B) \approx 3.75 cm. The field of view spans ±70\pm70^\circ azimuth and ±15\pm15^\circ elevation, with a 10 Hz obstacle detection update rate and a region of interest (ROI) of ±3\pm3 m lateral by 8 m forward.
  • GPS/IMU Fusion: A Google Pixel 8 (L1/L5 GNSS, 1–2 m accuracy) alongside a 3-axis MEMS accelerometer and gyroscope. Sensor fusion is performed via an Error-State Kalman Filter (ESKF) on an NVIDIA Jetson Nano, with state x=[p,v,q]T\mathbf{x} = [\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{v}, \mathbf{q}]^T for global pose estimation.
  • Edge Computing: NVIDIA Jetson Nano, running ROS, processes radar data (range/Doppler FFT, beamforming, CFAR detection, DBSCAN clustering, tracking), fuses GNSS and IMU, and transmits obstacle/pose data to a Meta Quest 3 headset across 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi at 20 Hz.

The data flow follows: radar and GNSS + IMU \rightarrow Jetson Nano (sensing, fusion, clustering) \rightarrow Unity application on headset (visualization).

2. Sensing, Signal Processing, and Obstacle Tracking

The perception pipeline derives spatial and kinematic information through a layered process:

  • Radar Signal Processing: Range FFT produces range bins (NrN_r), Doppler FFT estimates velocity bins (NdN_d), followed by angle-of-arrival estimation using beamforming (MVDR or Delay-and-Sum). CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate) detection thresholds are set as T=αPnoiseT = \alpha P_{noise}, with PnoiseP_{noise} adaptively estimated.
  • Clustering & Tracking: DBSCAN clusters are defined by points within ϵ=0.3\epsilon = 0.3 m and minPts = 5. Cluster centroids initialize tracked obstacles. A constant-velocity Kalman filter with state s=[x,y,x˙,y˙]T\mathbf{s} = [x, y, \dot{x}, \dot{y}]^T propagates predicted states via transition matrix

F=[10Δt0 010Δt 0010 0001]F = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & \Delta t & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & \Delta t \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}

Observation-model update uses measurement matrix H=[1 0 0 0;0 1 0 0]H = [1\ 0\ 0\ 0; 0\ 1\ 0\ 0].

  • Coordinate Frame Alignment: Radar-frame detections pr=[xr,yr,zr,1]Tp_r = [x_r, y_r, z_r, 1]^T are transformed into the world frame using successive homogeneous transforms:

pw=TGNSSWTIMUGNSSTRadarIMUprp_w = T_{GNSS \to W} \, T_{IMU \to GNSS} \, T_{Radar \to IMU} \, p_r

with TRadarIMUT_{Radar \to IMU} specified by fixed rotation RR and translation tt from calibration.

As a result, real-time, fused obstacle locations are rendered in reference to the tracked headset pose.

3. Visualization Strategies: Embedding Obstacles in VR

WaveWalkerClone investigates three visualization modalities for radar-tracked obstacles within VR, rendered in Unity (2022.3) using OpenXR on Meta Quest 3 (Nargund et al., 1 Feb 2026):

  • Diegetic Alien Avatars: Low-poly, thematic aliens integrated with virtual narrative. Scaling with distance dd follows avatar_scale=s0(1ed/d0)\text{avatar\_scale} = s_0 (1 - e^{-d/d_0}), d0=4d_0 = 4 m, and emissive tint transitions from blue (far) to green (near), color(d)=lerp(blue,green,clamp(1d/8,0,1))color(d) = \text{lerp}(\text{blue}, \text{green}, \text{clamp}(1-d/8, 0, 1)).
  • Non-Diegetic Human Avatars: Neutral gray, human-mesh proxies animated using filtered real-world velocity; visually informative but intentionally not thematic.
  • Abstract Point Clouds: Aggregated radar points from last 0.3 s, colored by height-encoded HSL with opacity function α(d)=α0ed/8\alpha(d) = \alpha_0 e^{-d/8}, α0=0.75\alpha_0 = 0.75.

Each method targets a distinct trade-off between immersion, interpretability, and narrative coherence.

4. Behavioral Evaluation: User Study Design and Metrics

A within-subjects experiment (N=18N=18) was conducted with moderate-experience VR users (median age 20) (Nargund et al., 1 Feb 2026). Each participant completed three conditions (Latin-square counterbalanced): alien avatars, human avatars, and point clouds, walking a 200 m outdoor route with natural bystanders as dynamic obstacles (26.3±5.3\approx 26.3\, \pm\, 5.3 encounters/trial).

Primary outcomes included:

  • Presence: Measured by the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (subscales: spatial presence, involvement, realness).
  • Task Load & Perceived Effort: NASA-TLX overall and subscales (mental, physical, temporal, performance, effort, frustration).
  • Safety: Collision Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ; custom Perceived Safety, 1–5 Likert), walking time.
  • Cross-Reality Interaction: CRIQ [Gottsacker et al., 2021].

ANOVA or Friedman tests analyzed main effects; Bonferroni correction used for pairwise comparisons; effect sizes (ηp2\eta_p^2) reported.

5. Key Results and Trade-Offs Across Visualization Types

Principal findings highlight nuanced performance and user preference differentials:

  • Detection Timeliness: Condition effect for "noticed dynamic obstacles promptly" (F(2,34)=4.63F(2,34) = 4.63, p=0.017p=0.017, ηp2=0.21\eta_p^2=0.21); post-hoc revealed point clouds were slower than alien avatars (p=0.043p=0.043).
  • Safety: No significant differences in CAQ or Perceived Safety between conditions; mean safety rating 4.1/5\approx4.1/5 robust to lighting changes.
  • Presence & Task Load: No significant differences in IPQ or overall NASA-TLX (F(2,34)=0.59F(2,34) = 0.59, p=0.54p = 0.54). Effort and frustration trended lower for avatars and point clouds, respectively.
  • User Preference: Nine preferred diegetic aliens, five point clouds, four human avatars.
  • Qualitative Insights: Missed radar detections undermined comfort, especially when real bystanders were audible but not visible. Point clouds conveyed group extent most clearly; avatars clarified precise obstacle positions. "Ghost tracks" from multipath artifacts startled users.

A summary of outcome metrics appears below:

Metric Aliens (Diegetic) Humans (Non-diegetic) Point Cloud (Abstract)
Perceived Effort (NASA-TLX, mean) 30.3 37.5 41.1
Frustration (NASA-TLX, mean) 26.9 19.2 17.8
Preferred by users (count, N=18) 9 4 5

6. Design Principles and Future Directions

Evaluation of WaveWalkerClone led to the following guidelines (Nargund et al., 1 Feb 2026):

  • Hybrid Representations: Combining precise avatar proxies with abstract or ground-anchored overlays improves both localization and group extent estimation.
  • Semantic vs. Functional Coherence: Diegetic visual forms (narrative-syntonic) elevate immersion but may distract via anthropomorphization. Abstract representations promote interpretative clarity but reduce engagement.
  • Technical Priorities: System coherence—stability, low-latency tracking, and alignment of sensory cues (audio-visual)—directly impacts user presence more than the specific visual metaphors.
  • Sensor Coverage: Wider coverage (multiple radars or opportunistic recalibration) decreases "blind spots" and multipath "ghost" artifacts.
  • User Customization: Enabling users to select or blend visualization strategies enhances adaptability to environment and personal comfort.
  • Open Problems: Application to denser environments (vehicles, varied terrains), integration of auditory/haptic cues for out-of-field-of-view threats, and quantification of detection latencies via ROC curve analyses.

7. Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics: Simulation Methodology

WaveWalkerClone also denotes a class of numerical reproductions of the classical "walker" system, as detailed in (Tadrist et al., 2017). The physical system consists of a droplet "walking" on a vibrated bath, self-propelled by interaction with long-lived, damped sub-threshold Faraday waves generated at each impact.

The core theoretical and numerical recipe incorporates:

  • Governing Equations: The vertical surface deformation ζk(t)\zeta_k(t) (Fourier mode kk) for the vibrated bath is described by the damped Mathieu equation:

d2ζkdt2+2νk2dζkdt+[gk+σρk3Γgkcos(Ωt)]ζk=0\frac{d^2 \zeta_k}{dt^2} + 2\nu k^2\,\frac{d\zeta_k}{dt} + \Big[gk + \frac{\sigma}{\rho}k^3 - \Gamma g k \cos(\Omega t)\Big]\zeta_k = 0

with solution structure determined by the vibration amplitude Γ\Gamma, frequency Ω\Omega, density ρ\rho, surface tension σ\sigma, and viscosity ν\nu.

  • Wave Forcing from Impacts: Each droplet kick at time tnt_n, position rn\mathbf{r}_n, applies a delta-pressure in space and time, seeding the surface wave field. The evolution after multiple impacts is constructed as a superposition of impulse responses (Green's functions).
  • Memory and Spatiotemporal Persistence: The wave memory parameter M=Γ/ΓΓFM = \Gamma/|\Gamma - \Gamma_F| governs the time constant τγ=MTF\tau_\gamma = M T_F, with TF=4π/ΩT_F = 4\pi/\Omega. For Γ\Gamma just below threshold ΓF\Gamma_F, memory can reach M5M \sim 5–$20$, supporting non-Markovian dynamics and quantum-like phenomena.
  • Numerical Scheme: Discretized in time/space, the wave field is updated each step by exponential decay and subharmonic driving, with new impulsive contributions for each bounce. The horizontal force on the droplet is mdgη(rn,t)-m_d g \nabla \eta(\mathbf{r}_n, t), integrated using explicit (e.g., Runge–Kutta) methods.
  • Parameter Choices: Silicone oil ($20$ cS), frequency f=80f = 80 Hz, Γ3.8\Gamma \approx 3.8–$4.2$, droplet radius $0.3$–$0.5$ mm, depth $6$ mm support walkers with Vw10V_w\sim 10 mm/s.

This formulation allows simulation of single-walker dynamics, multi-walker interaction, quantized orbits, and complex experiments in macroscopic pilot-wave mechanics.


Both implementations of WaveWalkerClone illustrate the integration of real-time sensing, numerical modeling, and interactive visualization for dynamic environments, with direct implications for safety in VR and macroscopic emulation of quantum-like behaviors (Nargund et al., 1 Feb 2026, Tadrist et al., 2017).

Topic to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this topic yet.

Follow Topic

Get notified by email when new papers are published related to WaveWalkerClone.