This article presents a comparison of different haptic systems, which are designed to simulate flat Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs) like touchscreens in virtual environments (VEs) such as CAVEs, and their respective performance. We compare a tangible passive transparent slate to a classic tablet and a sensory substitution system. These systems were tested during a controlled experiment. The performance and impressions from 20 subjects were collected to understand more about the modalities in the given context. The results show that the preferences of the subjects are strongly related to the use-cases and needs. In terms of performance, passive haptics proved to be significantly useful, acting as a space reference and a real-time continuous calibration system, allowing subjects to have lower execution durations and relative errors. Sensory substitution induced perception drifts during the experiment, causing significant performance disparities, demonstrating the low robustness of perception when spatial cues are insufficiently available. Our findings offer a better understanding on the nature of perception drifts and the need of strong multisensory spatial markers for such use-cases in CAVEs. The importance of a relevant haptic modality specifically designed to match a precise use-case is also emphasized.