When creating dynamic animations in Unity, transitions play a vital role in shifting between different animation states. These transitions are not just aesthetic—they’re often tied directly to your game logic to deliver responsive and immersive feedback to the player.

What Are Transitions?

In Unity’s Animator system, transitions are used to move from one animation state to another. This could mean transitioning from an “idle” state to a “running” state when the player moves, or from a “standing” state to a “hit reaction” when the character takes damage.

Triggering Transitions

Transitions are typically triggered by parameters—these can be:

• Booleans: Great for simple on/off states (e.g., isJumping = true). However, they should not be used for managing multiple simultaneous conditions, as this can cause errors or inconsistent behavior.
• Integers or Floats: Useful when you need more nuanced control, such as switching between multiple animation states based on a speed or health value.
• Triggers: Ideal for one-time events like a shot being fired or a character being hit.

For example, imagine a scenario in a shooter game:
When an object gets hit by a bullet, you can trigger a transition to a “damaged” animation state. This provides instant visual feedback to the player that the hit was registered—crucial for both gameplay and user experience.

Best Practices

• Use Booleans sparingly, only for simple, binary state changes.
• Use Triggers or numerical parameters for more complex or multi-condition transitions.
• Always test transitions thoroughly to avoid animation glitches or logic conflicts.

Final Thoughts

Mastering transitions in Unity isn’t just about getting animations to play—it’s about making your game feel alive and responsive. By tying animations into game logic through intelligent use of transitions and parameters, you enhance both the realism and playability of your game.

Project Progress

For my project, I’m using a 3D model of a Creep Monster, which I downloaded from the FAB platform in FBX format. (Creep Monster | Fab) I then uploaded it to Mixamo, where I generated a skeleton for the model and applied different animations—such as standing idle and dying.

After exporting those animations, I imported them into Unity. One of the main steps is adding components, especially the Animator component. This is essential for handling transitions between animation states. These transitions are not only important for visual feedback but are also critical for managing game logic.

I also attached a custom C# script to the monster object in the scene. This script controls what actions should happen to the monster based on in-game interactions.

A key requirement for this setup is having an Avatar. The downloaded model didn’t come with one, but Unity allows you to generate it. To do this:

1. Select the model in the Inspector panel.
2. Go to the Rig tab under the Model settings.
3. Change the Animation Type to “Humanoid”.
4. Under the Avatar section, choose “Create From This Model”.
5. Click Apply.

This process fixed an issue I faced during gameplay where the model wasn’t rendering correctly. The problem stemmed from the missing Avatar, which serves as the rig representation Unity needs for the Animator to work properly.

For interaction and testing, I modified a custom C# script attached to the bullet object. This script checks for OnTriggerEnter() events. When the bullet’s collider detects a collision with an object tagged as “Monster”, it triggers another script. That secondary script acts as a bridge, connecting the collision event to the Animator on the Creep Monster.

As a result, when the player shoots the monster, the Animator transitions from its default state to a “dying” animation. This workflow is how I’m handling enemy reactions and visual feedback for hits and deaths in the game.

It’s been a great way to troubleshoot and understand how colliders, custom C# scripts, and Animator states work together in Unity.

Next, I’ll explore animation layers for better control, especially for complex character behaviours.

Project Objective

This project in it’s own nature is experimental and investigates animation of visual feedback within gamified or interactive VR environments. The work is grounded in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), especially within 3D immersive spaces where traditional screen-based feedback is replaced by spatial, multisensory experiences.

From Screen to Immersion: A Shift in Feedback Paradigms

In traditional gaming, feedback is predominantly audiovisual, limited to what can be shown on a 2D screen. In VR, the immersive spatial environment introduces new challenges and opportunities. Visual feedback becomes a primary tool for user orientation and understanding, especially when combined with haptic and audio inputs.

As we move away from screen-based interactions into head-mounted display (HMD) experiences, visual animation plays a central role in reinforcing the sensation of presence and in guiding user interaction. Haptic feedback can complement this, but visual cues remain the most immediate and informative component of interaction in VR.

The Role of Animation in Action-Based Feedback

Consider a typical game mechanic like shooting a gun in VR:

• The user performs an action (e.g. firing a laser).
• A visual response follows (e.g. a laser beam shoots forward and hits a target).
• This entire process is animated, and the quality and believability of that animation impact the user’s understanding and experience.

Here, animation serves not just aesthetic purposes, but as a way to translate data into visual understanding—the laser beam visualises the trajectory and the distance within the space which helps user understand the space and gives them a sense of the space, which offers infinite FOV.



1. Personal Space

• Distance: ~0.5 to 1.2 meters (1.5 to 4 feet)
• Description: This is the space we reserve for close friends, family, or trusted interactions.
• Use in VR: Personal space violations in VR can feel intense or invasive, making it powerful for emotional or narrative impact.

2. Intimate Space

• Distance: 0 to 0.5 meters (0 to 1.5 feet)
• Description: Reserved for very close interactions—hugging, whispering, or personal care.
• Use in VR: Very rare outside of specific narrative or therapeutic experiences. It can evoke strong emotional responses, including discomfort.

3. Social Space

• Distance: ~1.2 to 3.5 meters (4 to 12 feet)
• Description: The typical space for casual or formal social interaction—conversations at a party, business meetings, or classroom settings.
• Use in VR: Useful for multi-user or NPC (non-player character) interaction zones where you want users to feel present but not crowded.

4. Public Space

Use in VR: Great for audience design, environmental storytelling, or large-scale virtual spaces like plazas, arenas, or explorable worlds.

Distance: 3.5 meters and beyond (12+ feet)

Description: Space used for public speaking, performances, or observing others without direct engagement.

Visual Fidelity vs Animation Fidelity

Two critical concepts are being explored:

• Visual Fidelity: How objects are represented in terms of texture, rendering quality, lighting, and detail. This relates to how convincing or realistic the environment feels.
• Animation Fidelity: How smoothly and convincingly motion and interactions are animated. It includes timing, easing, weight, and physicality of motion.

Both forms of fidelity are essential for user immersion. High animation fidelity, in particular, supports believability—users need to feel that the action they performed caused a logical and proportional reaction in the environment.

Procedural Animation and Data-Driven Feedback

One key technique in this research is procedural animation—animations generated in real time based on code, physics, and user input, rather than being pre-authored (as in keyframe animation).

For example:

• A bullet fired from a gun might follow a trajectory calculated based on angle, speed, and environmental factors.
• The impact animation (e.g. an explosion) could scale in intensity depending on these values—larger impacts for faster bullets or steeper angles.
• This helps communicate different degrees of impact through graduated visual responses.

Benefits of Procedural Feedback

• Consistency with physical principles (e.g. gravity, momentum).
• Dynamic responsiveness to different user actions.
• Enhanced variation and realism, reducing repetitive feedback.

Designing Feedback for Understanding and Engagement

For visual feedback to be meaningful, variation matters. If every action results in the same animation (e.g., the same explosion no matter how intense the bullet), the user loses the ability to interpret the nuances of their actions.

Therefore, we must design condition-based feedback:

• A weak hit might produce a small spark.
• A high-speed, high-impact hit might create a large explosion with particle effects and shockwaves.

This approach informs users of the intensity and outcome of their actions, using animation to bridge interaction and consequence.

Justifying Design Choices

When working with keyframe animation, it’s essential to justify and rationalise aesthetic choices:

• Why a certain texture?
• Why a particular particle effect?
• How do visual effects reflect the mechanics or emotional tone of the interaction?

These decisions must support the internal logic of the virtual environment and the user’s mental model of interaction within it.

Conclusion

This project explores how animation in immersive VR spaces can meaningfully represent user actions and their consequences. Through the lens of visual and animation fidelity, and by leveraging procedural techniques, we can create responsive, engaging, and informative feedback systems that enhance immersion, understanding, and enjoyment in gamified experiences.

Ultimately, thoughtful visual feedback design becomes a powerful language—bridging code, physics, and emotion—in the architecture of immersive digital spaces.

I’ve been experimenting with the idea of creating a mixed reality game—something I first got excited about during a group project last term. That earlier experience got me thinking about how physical and virtual systems can be connected, but now I want to take it further and really explore in this project what mixed reality can mean as a creative and interactive space.

Mixed reality is often understood as bridging the physical and virtual, where virtual objects are rendered on top of the real world, touching on the idea of augmentation. But what I was more interested in was the idea that experiences and interactions happening within the virtual world, inside the headset, can actually result in physical outcomes. I’m really fascinated by that transition between the two worlds, especially how user actions in VR can influence or change something in the real world.

I’ve begun with reading to back this concept up. One book that’s really influenced my thinking so far is Reality+ by David Chalmers. He argues that virtual realities aren’t fake or “less real” than the physical world. Virtual objects and experiences—if they’re consistent, immersive, and meaningful to the user—can be just as “real” as anything in the physical world. That idea stuck with me, especially when thinking about digital objects as things that have structure, effects, and presence—even if they’re built from code instead of atoms. What I’m interested in now is creating a system where virtual actions have real-world consequences. So instead of just being immersed in a virtual world, the player’s success or failure can actually change something in the physical world. That’s where I started thinking of repurposing my Venus flytrap installation—something physical and mechanical, driven by what happens in the VR game.

The game idea is still forming, but here’s the general concept: the player is in a virtual world where they need to defeat a group of Venus flytrap-like creatures. If they succeed, a real-life Venus flytrap sculpture (which I’m building using cardboard, 3D-printed cogs, and a DC motor) will physically open up in response.

Inspirational Work

Duchamiana by Lillian Hess

One of the pieces that really inspired my thinking for this project is Duchamiana by Lillian Hess. I first saw it at the Digital Body Festival in London in November 2024. After that, I started following the artist’s work more closely on Instagram and noticed how the piece has evolved. It’s been taken to the next level — not just visually, but in terms of interactivity and curation.

Originally, I experienced it as a pre-animated camera sequence that moved through a virtual environment with characters appearing along the way. But in a more recent iteration, it’s been reimagined and enriched through the integration of a treadmill. The user now has to physically walk in order for the camera to move forward. I really love this translation, where physical movement in the real world directly affects how you navigate through the digital space.

Instead of relying on hand controllers or pre-scripted animations, the system tracks the user’s physical steps. That real-world data drives the experience. What stood out to me most was not just the interaction, but the way physical sound — like the noise of someone walking on the treadmill — becomes part of the audio-visual experience. It creates this amazing fusion: a layered, mixed-reality moment where real-world action affects both the sound and visuals of the virtual world.

It’s made me think a lot about how we might go beyond the VR headset — how we can design for transitions between physical and virtual spaces in more embodied, sensory ways. It’s a fascinating direction, and this work really opened up new possibilities in how I’m thinking about my own project.

Mother Bear, Mother Hen by Dr. Victoria Bradbury

Mother Bear Mother Hen Trailer on Vimeo

One project that really caught my attention while researching mixed reality and physical computing in VR is Mother Bear, Mother Hen by Dr. Victoria Bradbury, an assistant professor of New Media at UNC Asheville. What I found especially compelling is how the piece bridges physical and virtual spaces through custom-built wearable interfaces — essentially, two bespoke jackets: one themed as a bear and the other as a chicken.

These wearables act as physical computing interfaces, communicating the user’s real-world movements into the game world via a Circuit Playground microcontroller. The gameplay itself is hosted in VR using an HTC Vive headset. In this setup, the user’s stomping motion — tracked through the microcontroller — controls the movement mechanics within the game, while the HTC Vive controllers are used for actions like picking up objects or making selections.

Both the bear and chicken jackets communicate via the Arduino Uno. A stamping motion controls the movement, and the costumes allow for auditory and visual responsiveness.

What makes this piece even more immersive is how the wearables themselves provide both audio and visual feedback. They incorporate built-in lighting and responsive sound outputs that reflect what’s happening in the game — a brilliant example of reactive media design.

The project was awarded an Epic Games grant, which shows the increasing recognition and support for experimental VR and new media works that fuse physical computing with virtual environments. I found it incredibly inspiring, especially in the context of exploring embodied interaction, wearable technology, and the creative possibilities of mixed reality. It’s a powerful reminder of how far VR can go when it intersects with tactile, real-world interfaces and artistic intention.

Unreal Plant by leia @leiamake

Unreal Plant

Another project that combines Unreal Engine with physical computing is Real Plant by leia @leiamake. It explores the idea of a virtual twin, where a real plant is mirrored in both the physical and digital realms. The setup includes light sensors that monitor the plant’s exposure to light in the real world. That data is then sent to the virtual world, where the digital twin of the plant responds in the same way—lighting up when the physical plant is exposed to lighth.

This project is a great example of bridging the two worlds and creating an accurate mapping between them. It really embodies the concept of the virtual twin by translating real-world inputs into virtual actions. There’s also some additional interaction, like pressing a button to water the plant, though that part is more conventional and relies on standard inputs like a mouse or keyboard. Still, the core idea—mirroring real-world changes in the virtual space—is what stood out to me.

Virtual Reality and Robotics

A similar concept using physical computing and robotics can be found in real-world applications, such as remote robotic control systems. In these systems, the user operates from a VR control room equipped with multiple sensors. Using Oculus controllers, the user can interact with virtual controls in a shared space—sometimes even space-like environments.

Because Oculus devices support features like hand tracking and pose recognition, users can perform tasks such as gripping, picking up objects, and moving items around. What’s impressive about this setup is that the designers have mapped the human physical space into virtual space, and then further mapped that virtual space into the robotic environment. This creates a strong sense of co-location between the human operator and the robot’s actions.

This setup is a great example of a virtual twin, where there’s a precise and responsive mapping between virtual and physical environments. It also points towards the emerging concept of the industrial metaverse, particularly in training robots and AI systems.

A similar example is the early development of Tesla’s humanoid robots. While these robots are designed to be autonomous, they can also be operated by humans through virtual reality systems. The aim is often to support tasks like healthcare delivery or improving social connections.

This is an example where VR and robotics are used to stock up the shop shelves remotely, from a distance.

This ties into the idea of the virtual twin—replicating what happens in the virtual world and mapping it onto physical robots. It’s essentially about translating human actions in a digital environment into responses in the physical world, which is a key aspect of bridging virtual and real spaces.

Industrial meatverse.