The principal item of a full-scale lab preferably features a court-like facility where the 1:1 simulations are performed. Such lab facilities can be found at various architecture education centers throughout Europe. In the early eighties the European Full-scale Modeling Association (abrev. EFA, full-scale standing for 1:1 or simulation in full-scale) was founded acting as the patron of a conference every two years. In line with the conference title "Full-scale Modeling in the Age of Virtual Reality" the participants were particularly concerned with the relationship of physical 1:1 simulations and VR. The assumption that those creating architecture provide of a higher degree of affinity to physical than to virtual models and prototypes was subject of vivid discussions.

Furthermore, the participants devoted some time to issues such as the integration of model-like ideas and built reality thus uncovering any such synergy-effects. Thus some major considerations had to be given to the question of how the architectís model-like ideas and built reality would correspond, also dealing with user-suitability as such: what the building artist might be thrilled with might not turn out to be the residentsí and usersí everyday delight. Aspects of this nature were considered at the îArchitectural Psychology Meeting” together with specialists on environment and aesthetics. As individual space perception as well as its evaluation differ amongst various architects, and these being from various countries furnishing cultural differences, lively discussions were bound to arise.

Environmental psychologists specializing in architectural psychology offer "user needs' assessments" and "post occupancy evaluations" to facilitate communication between users and experts. To compare the efficiency of building descriptions, building walkthroughs, regular plans, simulation, and direct, long-time exposition, evaluation has to be evaluated.

Computer visualizations and virtual realities grow more important, but studies on the effects of simulation techniques upon experts and users are rare. As a contribution to the field of architectural simulation, an expert - user comparison of CAD versus endoscopy/model simulations of a Vienna city project was realized in 1995. The Department for Spatial Simulation at the Vienna University of Technology provided diaslides of the planned city development at Aspern showing a) CAD and b) endoscopy photos of small-scale polystyrol models. In an experimental design, they were presented uncommented as images of "PROJECT A" versus "PROJECT B" to student groups of architects and non-architects at Vienna and Salzburg (n= 95) and assessed by semantic differentials. Two contradictory hypotheses were tested: 1. The "selective framing hypothesis" (SFH) as the subjective theory of planners, postulating different judgement effects (measured by item means of the semantic differential) through selective attention of the planners versus material- and context-bound perception of the untrained users. 2. The "general framing hypothesis" (GFH) postulates typical framing and distraction effects of all simulation techniques affecting experts as well as non-experts.

The experiment showed that -counter-intuitive to expert opinions- framing and distraction were prominent both for experts and lay people (= GFH). A position effect (assessment interaction of CAD and endoscopy) was present with experts and non-experts, too. With empirical evidence for "the medium is the message", a more cautious attitude has to be adopted towards simulation products as powerful framing (i.e. perception- and opinion-shaping) devices.

How is the research situation? Using several standard research data banks, the author collected articles and book(chapter)s on architectural psychology in German- and English-language countries from 1990 to 1996. Studies on main architecture-psychology interface problems such as user needs, housing quality evaluations, participatory planning and spatial simulation / virtual reality did not outline an “old, settled” discipline, but rather the sketchy, random surface of a field “always starting anew”. E.g., discussions at the 1995 EAEA-Conference showed that several architectural simulation studies since 1973 caused no major impact on planner's opinions (Keul&Martens, 1996). “Re-inventions of the wheel” are caused by a lack of meetings (except this one!) and of interdisciplinary infrastructure in German-language countries (contrary to Sweden or the United States). Social pressures building up on architecture nowadays by inter-European competition, budget cuts and citizen activities for informed consent in most urban projects are a new challenge for planners to cooperate efficiently with social scientists. At Salzburg, the author currently manages the Corporate Design-process for the Chamber of Architecture, Division for Upper Austria and Salzburg. A “working group for architectural psychology” (Keul-Martens-Maderthaner) has been active since 1994.

In times characterized by the growing “architectural criticism” to the same extent as by the helplessness of the anonymous user the communication process between contractors, planer and users gains in importance. If communication is successful will not only depend on the quality of the project but also on the means of conveyance, e.g. visualizing or model representation. Can planning evaluation be effectively supported by virtual reality (VR)?