The possibilities of computer simulation also extend to issues inadequately covered by normative analysis and in particular to dynamic aspects of design such as human movement and circulation. The paper reports on a framework for addressing two related problems, (a) the simulation of fire escape from buildings and (b) the simulation of human movement on stairs. In both cases we propose that current evaluation techniques and the underlying design norms are too abstract to offer a measure of design success, as testified by the number of fatal accidents in fires and on stairs. In addition, fire escape and stair climbing are characterized by great variability with respect to both the form of the possible designs and the profiles of potential users. This suggests that testing prototypical forms by typical users and publishing the results as new, improved norms is not a realistic proposition for ensuring a global solution. Instead, we should test every design individually, within its own context. The development of an affordable, readily available system for the analysis and evaluation of aspects such as fire escape and stair safety can be based on the combination of the technologies of virtual reality and motion capture. Testing of a design by a number of test people in an immersion space provides not only intuitive evaluations by actual users but also quantitative data on the cognitive and proprioceptive behaviour of the test people. These data can be compiled into profiles of virtual humans for further testing of the same or related designs.

The problem resides in how realistic these Computer Generated Models (CGM) are. Moss & Banks (1958) considered realism “the capacity to reproduce as exactly as possible the object of study without actually using it”. He considers that realism depends on: 1)The number of elements that are reproduced; 2) The quality of those elements; 3) The similarity of replication and 4) Replication of the situation. CGM respond well to these considerations, they can be very realistic. But, are they capable of reproducing the same impressions on people as a real space?

Research has debated about the problems of the mode of representation and its influence on the judgement which is made. Wools (1970), Lau (1970) and Canter, Benyon & West (1973) have demonstrated that the perception of a space is influenced by the mode of presentation. CGM are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional space. Canter (1973) considers the three-dimensionality of the stimuli as crucial for its perception. So, can a CGM afford as much as a three-dimensional model?

The “Laboratorio de Experimentacion Espacial” (LEE) has been concerned with the problem of reality of the models used by architects. We have studied the degree in which models can be used as reliable and representative of real situations analyzing the Ecological Validity of several of them, specially the Real-Scale Model (Abadi & Cavallin, 1994). This kind of model has been found to be ecologically valid to represent real space. This research has two objectives: 1) to study the Ecological Validity of a Computer Generated Model; and 2) compare it with the Ecological Validity of a Real Scale Model in representing a real space.

Decisions taken in the ‘private design space’ of the design team or ‘actor’ are closely related to the type of support that can be provided by a Collaborative Design system: automatic checks performed by activating procedures and methods, reporting of 'local' conflicts, methods and knowledge for the resolution of ‘local’ conflicts, creation of new IT objects/ building components, who the objects must refer to (the ‘owner’), 'situated' aspects (Gero and Reffat, 2001) of the IT objects/building components.

Decisions taken in the ‘shared design space’ involve aspects that are typical of networked design and that are partially present in the ‘private’ design space. Cross-checking, reporting of ‘global’ conflicts to all those concerned, even those who are unaware they are concerned, methods for their resolution, the modification of data structure and interface according to the actors interacting with it and the design phase, the definition of a 'dominus' for every IT object (i.e. the decision-maker, according to the design phase and the creation of the object). All this is made possible both by the model for representing the building (Carrara and Fioravanti, 2001), and by the type of IT representation of the individual building components, using the methods and techniques of Knowledge Engineering through a structured set of Knowledge Bases, Inference Engines and Databases. The aim is to develop suitable tools for supporting integrated Process/Product design activity by means of a effective and innovative representation of building entities (technical components, constraints, methods) in order to manage and resolve conflicts generated during the design activity.

Decisions taken in the ‘private design space’ of the design team or ‘actor’ are closely related to the type of support that can be provided by a Collaborative Design system: automatic checks performed by activating procedures and methods, reporting of 'local' conflicts, methods and knowledge for the resolution of ‘local’ conflicts, creation of new IT objects/ building components, who the objects must refer to (the ‘owner’), 'situated' aspects (Gero and Reffat, 2001) of the IT objects/building components.

Decisions taken in the ‘shared design space’ involve aspects that are typical of networked design and that are partially present in the ‘private’ design space. Cross-checking, reporting of ‘global’ conflicts to all those concerned, even those who are unaware they are concerned, methods for their resolution, the modification of data structure and interface according to the actors interacting with it and the design phase, the definition of a 'dominus' for every IT object (i.e. the decision-maker, according to the design phase and the creation of the object). All this is made possible both by the model for representing the building (Carrara and Fioravanti, 2001), and by the type of IT representation of the individual building components, using the methods and techniques of Knowledge Engineering through a structured set of Knowledge Bases, Inference Engines and Databases. The aim is to develop suitable tools for supporting integrated Process/Product design activity by means of a effective and innovative representation of building entities (technical components, constraints, methods) in order to manage and resolve conflicts generated during the design activity.

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.

Most of the studies done for the effective use of this potential of computer aid in architectural design assert that the way architects design without the computer is not "familiar" to the way architects are led to design with the computer. In other words, they complain that the architectural design software does not work in the same way as the architects think and design the models in their brains. Within the above framework, this study initially discusses architectural design as a modeling process and defines computer generated simulations (walkthrough, flythrough, virtual reality) as models. Based on this discussion, the "familiarity" of architectural design and computer aided design is displayed. And then, it is asserted that the issue of familiarity should be discussed not from the point of the modeling procedure, but from the "trueness" of the model displayed.

Therefore, it is relevant to ask to what extent should the simulation simulate the design model. The simulation, actually, simulates not what is real, but what is unreal. In other words, the simulation tells lies in order to display the truth. Consequently, the study proposes measures as to how true a simulation model should be in order to represent the design model best.

Another of the built examples at Trondheim University which will be presented, is a doctor's waitingroom. It is a case study of special interest because it often appears to be a neglected area. Let us start asking: What do we have in common when we are waiting to come in to a doctor? We are nervous and we feel sometimes miserable. Analysing the situation we understand the need for an interior that cares for our state of mind. The level of light is important in this situation. Light has to speak softly. Instead of the ordinary strong light in the middle of the ceiling, several spots are selected to lighten the small tables separating the seats. The separation is supposed to give a feeling of privacy. By the low row of reflected planes we experience an intimate and warming atmosphere in the room. A special place for children contributes to the total impression of calm. In this corner the inside of some shelves are lit by indirect light, an effect which puts emphasis on the small scale suitable for a child. And it also demonstrates the good results of variation. The light setting in this room shows how light is “caught” two different ways.

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.