A study by Slater et al. [1995] found that walking-in-place (virtual walking) in immersive virtual environments leads to higher subjective presence than flying. This study replicated the experiment, adding real walking as a third condition. Results confirmed that real walking is significantly better than both virtual walking and flying in terms of ease and naturalness. The greatest difference in presence was between flyers and walkers. Real walkers had higher presence than virtual walkers, though the difference was not always statistically significant. Virtual walking can be improved by detecting footfalls with a head accelerometer. Subjective presence was strongly correlated with the degree of association with the virtual body (avatar). This suggests that tracking all limbs and customizing avatar appearance can enhance presence. An unexpected result was that real walking through an enhanced version of Slater's visual-cliff environment created a compelling virtual experience. The most needed system improvement is replacing wired connections with wireless technology. The study compared flying, virtual walking, and real walking in terms of ease and presence. Real walking was found to be the most natural and easiest. The experiment used a wide-area ceiling tracker and a detailed virtual environment. The virtual world included a visual cliff scenario, with a virtual pit and ledge. Subjects were asked to navigate to a chair, either across the pit or along the ledge. The study found that real walking was better than flying and virtual walking in terms of presence and ease. The results showed that real walking is better for natural, easy, and uncomplicated locomotion. The study also found that association with the virtual body significantly affects presence. Female subjects had a higher sense of presence than males, though this was confounded by differences in computer game playing. The study also found that oculomotor discomfort reduced presence for flyers but not for real or virtual walkers. The compelling virtual experience was attributed to factors such as the visual cliff environment, low system latency, real walking, realistic avatar, high-resolution display, and stereopsis. The study concluded that real walking is best for human-scale spaces, though not cheap. Virtual walking is more economical and better for presence and spatial estimation. The study also highlighted the importance of avatar realism and the need for further research in this area.A study by Slater et al. [1995] found that walking-in-place (virtual walking) in immersive virtual environments leads to higher subjective presence than flying. This study replicated the experiment, adding real walking as a third condition. Results confirmed that real walking is significantly better than both virtual walking and flying in terms of ease and naturalness. The greatest difference in presence was between flyers and walkers. Real walkers had higher presence than virtual walkers, though the difference was not always statistically significant. Virtual walking can be improved by detecting footfalls with a head accelerometer. Subjective presence was strongly correlated with the degree of association with the virtual body (avatar). This suggests that tracking all limbs and customizing avatar appearance can enhance presence. An unexpected result was that real walking through an enhanced version of Slater's visual-cliff environment created a compelling virtual experience. The most needed system improvement is replacing wired connections with wireless technology. The study compared flying, virtual walking, and real walking in terms of ease and presence. Real walking was found to be the most natural and easiest. The experiment used a wide-area ceiling tracker and a detailed virtual environment. The virtual world included a visual cliff scenario, with a virtual pit and ledge. Subjects were asked to navigate to a chair, either across the pit or along the ledge. The study found that real walking was better than flying and virtual walking in terms of presence and ease. The results showed that real walking is better for natural, easy, and uncomplicated locomotion. The study also found that association with the virtual body significantly affects presence. Female subjects had a higher sense of presence than males, though this was confounded by differences in computer game playing. The study also found that oculomotor discomfort reduced presence for flyers but not for real or virtual walkers. The compelling virtual experience was attributed to factors such as the visual cliff environment, low system latency, real walking, realistic avatar, high-resolution display, and stereopsis. The study concluded that real walking is best for human-scale spaces, though not cheap. Virtual walking is more economical and better for presence and spatial estimation. The study also highlighted the importance of avatar realism and the need for further research in this area.