70 replies to this topic

[Pep]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
if the simulator would tilt over thirty degrees in one second the pull would considerably more than 1 G

The problem is that in an F1 car the forces take place during seconds. Taking the same example as before, it's not possible to simulate 2G or 3G during 3-4 seconds with a machine that can only apply a small tilt during 0.2 seconds (when the movement finish, the G forces finish).

[Georg_Kuyumji]

One of the most favorite Motion Simulator for Racing Simulations drivers is the FREX Cockpit. It costs about 1500 Dollars

Together with some Pro Pedals (500$) and a good Wheel (1000$) you can have a immersive experience with todays Simulations.



There is also a videos of it on youtube

[SirSaltire]

Originally posted by Georg_Kuyumji
One of the most favorite Motion Simulator for Racing Simulations drivers is the FREX Cockpit. It costs about 1500 Dollars

Together with some Pro Pedals (500$) and a good Wheel (1000$) you can have a immersive experience with todays Simulations.


There is also a videos of it on youtube

Intersesting looking but as Pep has explained it would not come near to simulating any force other than normal 1g

[HDonaldCapps]

As someone who has spent close to 20 years in the military simulation business on the development side and even longer as a user, I read this thread with some interest. I have worked on both land and aviation systems and currently more involved with fielding and supporting systems.

Assuming that you have the necessary ingredient, that is money, developing a formula one simulator is a pretty much a no-brainer. It is simply how much "reality" you want to buy. As pointed out, however, you will not get g-forces to cooperate when you try to simulate them. Besides, that is not a very good use of simulation in the first place -- you can simulate g-forces using an actual vehicular platform far more effectively than cobbling up a virtual system to try to do that.

In aviation, we now use a wide variety of ways to induce motion into the simuator. The three-axis (pitch-yaw, roll), fully articulated platforms we use for combat mission simulators is one technique that basically goes all the way back to the Link Trainer. We have found that a combination of visual information and something as simple as a seat-shaker can replicate much of what you encounter in the cockpit in actual operations. I was surprised how effective the seat-shaker was in replicating the "motion" of a rotary-winged attack aircraft. It was a very clever solution to the original idea of a three-axis platform which would have been a nightmare since it was to be a deployable system and, therefore, had to fit into a trailer-sized package.

About 15, 16, 18 years ago, as we began to really improve our ground simulators (SimNet being the first of these rather than the COFT as would be expected), we began to encounter a problem that had only previously been noted in aviation sims -- "simulator illness." Tankers and Bradley crews were experiencing symtoms similar to motion illness in the simulators even though they were not set in motion. It turned out that people were cueing from visual representation and fully imagining the motion that would normally be associated with certain tasks.

At any rate, just a bit on this from another perspective.

[SirSaltire]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
As someone who has spent close to 20 years in the military simulation business on the development side and even longer as a user, I read this thread with some interest. I have worked on both land and aviation systems and currently more involved with fielding and supporting systems.

Assuming that you have the necessary ingredient, that is money, developing a formula one simulator is a pretty much a no-brainer. It is simply how much "reality" you want to buy. As pointed out, however, you will not get g-forces to cooperate when you try to simulate them. Besides, that is not a very good use of simulation in the first place -- you can simulate g-forces using an actual vehicular platform far more effectively than cobbling up a virtual system to try to do that.

In aviation, we now use a wide variety of ways to induce motion into the simuator. The three-axis (pitch-yaw, roll), fully articulated platforms we use for combat mission simulators is one technique that basically goes all the way back to the Link Trainer. We have found that a combination of visual information and something as simple as a seat-shaker can replicate much of what you encounter in the cockpit in actual operations. I was surprised how effective the seat-shaker was in replicating the "motion" of a rotary-winged attack aircraft. It was a very clever solution to the original idea of a three-axis platform which would have been a nightmare since it was to be a deployable system and, therefore, had to fit into a trailer-sized package.

About 15, 16, 18 years ago, as we began to really improve our ground simulators (SimNet being the first of these rather than the COFT as would be expected), we began to encounter a problem that had only previously been noted in aviation sims -- "simulator illness." Tankers and Bradley crews were experiencing symtoms similar to motion illness in the simulators even though they were not set in motion. It turned out that people were cueing from visual representation and fully imagining the motion that would normally be associated with certain tasks.

At any rate, just a bit on this from another perspective.

Great to have your comments and very interesting reading - thankyou!

[Jerome]

Very interesting comments indeed, Don Capps.

Indeed, like you wrote so eloquently, screwing up the visual information for the 'driver' of 'pilot' in a simulator can make him or her 'believe' much more is happening than is actually happening...

By the way, I remember a story about a group of scientists visiting NASA, and the engineers decided to pull a little stunt. They gave the visitors a drink which screwed around the with the little grains of 'sand' in their midair, which takes care of the feeling of balance. They put the visitors then in a simulator and at one point, seemed to stop the simulator when it was upside down... and it stayed like that for half an hour... or so it seemed. Finally one of the visitors was so smart to take of his glasses and let it drop... if they were upside down, the spectables should have dropped from his hand to the floor/ceiling. But it just fell in his lap. It turned out to be so that they were not hanging upside down at all - they were faked by their midear, and some magnetic stunt the NASA played on them...

Point of this story is: you can perhaps not generate G-forces very easy, but with the right kind equipment and visual/fysical stimulation the simulation can become more real than life.

[Juan Kerr]

Originally posted by Pep


It takes 5 seconds to complete the long Seat turn in the spanish GP. The G forces (>3) push every part of your body, not only your head, but your arms, legs, feet, tongue and even your intestines.

Pushing the head of a driver wih an airbag in a simulator at the same time that he is turning would probably be more unrealistic than doing nothing.

Yes 2 quick ideas that took 2 seconds from me what about a team of space aged equipment clad mclaren engineers ? Besides the heavier the object the more it will generate the head and neck is by far the worst if they simulate that to a good extent much of the body could be done by squeezing with inflating air-bags.
You forget that they're looking for good indications for the brain to experience, the person could be able to improvise in his mind what to expect more accurately.
Sqeezing the body with air and exurting forces on the head and neck and generating lots of vibration are great methods to prepare a driver for the violence and jostling around.
The likes of McLaren probably got loads more ideas than me so I wouldn't write off the concept at all if I were you.

[Ivan]

jb
That guy almost tipped over!!!
That said I'd buy it if I could

themark
Now that was cool

[Ivan]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
we began to encounter a problem that had only previously been noted in aviation sims -- "simulator illness." Tankers and Bradley crews were experiencing symtoms similar to motion illness in the simulators even though they were not set in motion. It turned out that people were cueing from visual representation and fully imagining the motion that would normally be associated with certain tasks.

At any rate, just a bit on this from another perspective.

Did they have the illness from driving the real tanks?

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Ivan
Did they have the illness from driving the real tanks?

That was one of the things that had us puzzled at first, since although it happens in real platforms it is relatively rare. What we found was that being in a simulator and absent the other cues, that a number of crew members were ramping up the cuing, which added to the intensity of being in the simulator triggered what we came to call "Simulator Illness." It is a bit more involved than that, but it generally comes from an extended flow of exercise or practices inside the simulator rather than an exercise, AAR (After Action Review), exercise, AAR cycle. In the SimNet and then the CCTT, we can replicate movement to contact, engagements, exploitation, and continued operations. This can mean 30, 45 minutes or longer or intense work for a crew. I have been more worn out from 30 or 45 minutes inside a SimNet or CCTT or AVCATT than many hours at the NTC. I might still have the paper we asked for on this issue.

One point on this is that if you provide the necessary elements to practice tasks in simulation and the cueing that triggers responses on the part of the students, they will fill in the gaps, so to speak. Although I am sitting in a cockpit in a seat that does not physically "bank" when I bank or change the attitude of the aircraft, I still find myself leaning in the seat for instance. There are times when you literally forget that you are in simulation and all that training takes over.... it can get pretty intense.

[Limits]

First time I played a Quake-type of game (forgot the name) I ended up completely dizzy and vomiting. Since then I learned that the combination of low framerate and a low refresh rate on the monitor makes it tricky for the brain to create a "believable visual experience". Digital movements are, apart from being digital, often a bit erratic in timing if you load your system hard, meaning that the time between each frame is not always the same. But of course, the actual simulated movement does help the "sickness". However - I have not read the article in question, but why would the teams use only one type of simulator? My guess is theat they have one for driving training (learning tracks, general practice), one for the strategy (more accurate, non graphic, non realtime calculation) and maybe one for g-forces. Remember that the g-forces does not have to be simulated for any longer period of times, it is propably more important make the drivers get used to quick shifts in g-forces, because that is wre they are as most crucial. If you lose focus a split second after you hit the brakes at 320 km/h you you are in trouble if your car also get's a bit worried by te suddebn shift. Same applies to turning in, maybe the second turning in the chicane.

But it would really be interesting with an article covering this topic. I might even get a subscription for it

[SirSaltire]

Originally posted by Juan Kerr
Yes 2 quick ideas that took 2 seconds from me what about a team of space aged equipment clad mclaren engineers ? Besides the heavier the object the more it will generate the head and neck is by far the worst if they simulate that to a good extent much of the body could be done by squeezing with inflating air-bags.
You forget that they're looking for good indications for the brain to experience, the person could be able to improvise in his mind what to expect more accurately.
Sqeezing the body with air and exurting forces on the head and neck and generating lots of vibration are great methods to prepare a driver for the violence and jostling around.
The likes of McLaren probably got loads more ideas than me so I wouldn't write off the concept at all if I were you.

Can you imagine all the equipment they would need to set up to push and pull you from head to toe? Not to mention thowing back and forward and side to side. It would be cheaper and more realistic to put you in the real thing!!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by SirSaltire
While reading one of the latest ask Nigel Roebuck questions, I was intrigued by his answer to how realistic the F1 simulators are that some of the teams use. I can understand that the controls etc would be very realistic but he clearly says that these simulators are of use in getting drivers used to the g-forces! I think he must be wrong as surely a static simulator cannot exert g-forces on the driver

Well you turn the simulator 90 degrees and there you have 1G ;) That's enough for the lateral force F1 can achieve I think. But there is something unreal in it, the simulator turns to create the forces and if the driver can feel the angular momentum it's an unrealistic factor.

[SirSaltire]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Well you turn the simulator 90 degrees and there you have 1G ;) That's enough for the lateral force F1 can achieve I think. But there is something unreal in it, the simulator turns to create the forces and if the driver can feel the angular momentum it's an unrealistic factor.

:rotfl:F1 drivers get more than 1G lateral force in corners. You and I get 1G just sitting typing!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by SirSaltire
:rotfl:F1 drivers get more than 1G lateral force in corners. You and I get 1G just sitting typing!

Well it depends what is the 'friction coefficient' and how fast the corners/brakings there are. We are talking about lateral/longitudinal force and not downforce.

[Juan Kerr]

Originally posted by SirSaltire
Can you imagine all the equipment they would need to set up to push and pull you from head to toe? Not to mention thowing back and forward and side to side. It would be cheaper and more realistic to put you in the real thing!!

You're quite right, but I still think simulators can only get better and better if the will is there and people don't be negative and give up on the idea. Especially with todays technology. Sod it I say let's connect up the nerves of the body to a 'nerve stimulation simulator' !

[Haddock]

I wrote an article on this on my weblog a few weeks back. Its always seemed to me that as far as sports go, motorsport is much more amenable to being simulated on a computer than anything else. I'd be interested to know how much more realistic/challenging the Mclaren simulator is than some of the more egg-head commercial racing simulations, like Grand Prix Legends and R-Factor.

Interested to see some of the stuff that can be done with flight simulators these days.

[Tolyngee]

First, let me say that I would find it even more interesting if while using ANY of these sims, I also use (but haven't seen one wearing in any of these youtube vids yet) a Track IR (http://www.naturalpoint.com/)... Imagine your head shaking around a bit inside one of these contraptions, and it translating into jerkiness on the screen... Not sure how realistic, but might give interesting results...

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

About 15, 16, 18 years ago, as we began to really improve our ground simulators (SimNet being the first of these rather than the COFT as would be expected), we began to encounter a problem that had only previously been noted in aviation sims -- "simulator illness." Tankers and Bradley crews were experiencing symtoms similar to motion illness in the simulators even though they were not set in motion. It turned out that people were cueing from visual representation and fully imagining the motion that would normally be associated with certain tasks.

At any rate, just a bit on this from another perspective.

I don't remember what the source of this was, or if it's even accurate, but I remember that for the Apollo missions, the pilots were going to have to keep in mind that for some controls for some maneuvers, up/down was pitch and left/right roll (or maybe yaw), but that for some other things the pilots were going to have to just compensate that the controls will translate different: left/right may now be pitch, etc...

Anyways, what I am getting at is: I play a game recently where I couldn't just adjust the default configs for the controls... It was so utterly backwards (I tend to like my controls backwards from defaults, for some reason), that my brain couldn't compensate... I would think i was hitting the control for look up, the game would look down, but I would still tilt my head up thinking it would help (although I do use a Track IR at times, maybe this has a little to do with that reaction as well...)

But, with everything being backwards, and my brain just not compensating for "the controls are backwards, stupid" I'd say it took less than 10 minutes before I was close to wanting to barf...

First time I have had that sensation in all my years of first-person shooters and sims...

Although some just get this "motion sickness" effect from simple first-person games and sims and such, I always thought it was semi-silly... Until I became so disoriented by this game that I experienced it...

(I tried the game again maybe a week later... Got a few more minutes through, perhaps, but same sickness... I never tried it again...)

I haven't played Prey yet, but with the fact that "down" in a room can change, I think I may experience it again... (assuming it is more than just my being disoriented by not compensating for controls differences...)



But, I am now thinking about taking a flying sim or racing sim, and flipping some controls around, and seeing if it causes the same affect on me...


But I keep hearing pilots are so good that you can flip controls any way around, and they can compensate... But then I read about the human errors pilots make in cockpits (explaining why modern cockpits are now configured the way they are now...) and such, and I am not quite certain that's true anymore...

[MattPete]

Originally posted by Ivan

Did they have the illness from driving the real tanks?

Simulator sickness seems to be due to the time delay between the inputs (from the user) and what occurs in the display. For example, when you turn the wheel in your car, you expect your outside view to change accordingly. In a simulator, there is a delay of roughly 30 msec before something happens. The delay may be hard to perceive, but throw in the lack of g-force motion cues, and you get a recipe that can make some people sick. Essentially, the various cues that your mind uses for spatial updating aren't quite in synk or some are missing, and that bothers some people.

Interestingly, one of the things that cuts down sickness is a cool breeze. I know some folks that have used Saturn (the GM car) cabs for their simulators, and they pump a stream of cool air through the dash vents to minimize sickness.

Not everyone is suscetible to simulator sickness. I know a guy who flys planes, mountain climbs, and pole vaults, and he gets simulator sickness. I live a much more mundane life, and I never get simulator sickness.

It's not just hi-falutin' simulators that can cause sickness -- there were reports of sickness when Doom came out.

[Tenmantaylor]

My friend gets motion sickness sat in the passenger seat of a car with someone else driving. Some people are just wusses...

[Jerome]

Ahem

My guess is that the better balance people have, the more prone they are to artificial induced nausea or stomach sickness. It makes sense, and it is my experience. Also the friend of one the posters (the pole vaulter etc) seems to make that point as well...