# Enhancing Complex Injection Mold Design Validation Using Multicombined RV Environments
## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Questions** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_p_**-Values**} \\ \hline Detection of dimensional errors & Q1—CAD & 0.042 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q2—RV & 0.000 \\ \hline Functional error detection & Q3—CAD & 0.002 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q4—RV & 0.000 \\ \hline Design understanding & Q5—CAD & 0.045 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q6—RV & 0.000 \\ \hline Assembly and disassembly validation & Q7—CAD & 0.048 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q8—RV & 0.000 \\ \hline Influence on the training process & Q1—CAD & 0.078 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q2—RV & 0.000 \\ \hline Satisfaction degree & Q11 & 0.002 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Q12 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Normality test results for the proposed survey questions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Questions** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Variance**} \\ \hline Detection of dimensional errors & Q1—CAD & 4.86 & 1.207 & 1.457 \\  & Q2—RV & 6.09 & 0.610 & 0.372 \\ \hline Functional error detection & Q3—CAD & 5.36 & 1.217 & 1.481 \\  & Q4—RV & 6.27 & 0.883 & 0.780 \\ \hline Design understanding & Q5—CAD & 5.14 & 0.990 & 0.980 \\  & Q6—RV & 6.36 & 0.727 & 0.529 \\ \hline Assembly and disassembly validation & Q7—CAD & 5.00 & 0.926 & 0.857 \\  & Q8—RV & 6.73 & 0.550 & 0.303 \\ \hline Influence on the training process & Q1—CAD & 4.82 & 1.053 & 1.109 \\  & Q2—RV & 6.64 & 0.658 & 0.433 \\ \hline Satisfaction degree & Q11 & 6.09 & 0.921 & 0.848 \\  & Q12 & 6.59 & 0.666 & 0.444 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results obtained for the descriptive statistical analysis. Figure 13 also compares the results obtained when detecting design functional errors using VR technology and conventional CAD environments (see Table 1). Once more, the survey results indicate that functional errors, such as inadequate layouts of injection mold systems or the absence of fundamental components, are more efficiently detected using VR technology. In particular, 59.09% have positively valued, scoring above 6 on the Likert scale, the application of this technology in the detection of functional errors. Similarly, the trend in these assessments is maintained for the rest of the questions asked (see Figures 14 and 15). However, in areas related to the understanding of the design and functionality of injection molding, the validation of their assembly and disassembly tasks and the influence on the learning and training process for future professions in this sector, the evaluations obtained by applying VR technology stand out significantly compared to the use of conventional CAD modelling environments. In particular, 50%, 77.27% and 72.73% of the mold experts value the application of VR technology for the understanding of the design and functionality of injection molding, the validation of assembly and disassembly tasks and the influence on the learning and training process for future professionals in this sector, respectively, very positively, with a score of 7 on the Likert scale. Figure 14: Response frequency obtained for design compression and assembly and disassembly validation questions. Figure 13: Response frequency obtained for the error detection questions. Finally, as depicted in Figure 15, the satisfaction level regarding the application of VR technology in the injection molding industrial sector is assessed through two questions. Firstly, the satisfaction level with the utilization of VR technology in injection mold design processes is evaluated. It was observed that molding experts, with a cumulative relative frequency of 72.72%, positively appraise the application of VR technology in injection mold design processes, indicating a Likert scale score. Furthermore, the satisfaction level with the application of VR technology in assembly and disassembly tasks of injection molds is also assessed. It is evident that mold experts, with a relative frequency of 90.91%, highly appreciate the application of VR technology in these tasks, indicating a Likert scale score greater than 6.