Simulator technology

[Richard]

Strikingly different from the usual playstation on hydraulic jacks.

Which is probably why McLaren famously don't even let anyone look inside the door of their simulator room.

[747heavy]

Max Planck Institute version of an F1 simulator, using a Kuka robot arm.

http://robots.net/article/3039.html

Seeing this, it´s understandable that some drivers suffer from motion sickness in such a simulator (if a F1 team would use something like this).

[marcush.]

sitting in it ,if its replicating the true world ...you should not experience motion sickness... or you should have this in the real thing as well...
funny that some people get sick from their own driving on the Nordschleife ...especially in night driving ,Nordschleife is a bit special with some serious elevatiion changes and jumps ..I´m usually not easy to get disturbed but could not stand more than two or three laps at speed NOT looking at the track on Nordschleife (Watching only the figures on the Laptop and the hero driving the thing.Hats off to Rally Co drivers..).I understand that people with middle ear problems are prone to having nausea driving at speed .

[747heavy]

sitting in it ,if its replicating the true world ...you should not experience motion sickness...

I guess you would run out of "space" with your simulator if you want to reproduce the real thing. Especially in terms of 4-5g longitunal acceleration under braking.
If you watch the video I have posted and compare it to the on-board screen, you see that the (this) simulator exaggerate the motions in a attempt to replicate the accel sensation.
This is quite common with most simulators I have seen ( not that many ), and could lead to the problem of motion sickness.
(you normally don´t see ~30° of forward/backward pitch in a F1 car)

As for the rally co-driver/Nordschleife comment.
I know of (at least) two top level WRC co-drivers which used (WRC 1990-1993&1995) medication against sea/motion sickness during the 1000 Lakes Rally in Finland (famous for it´s elevation changes&jumps), and these guys/girls are not easily scared.
I would not be too surprised if others would use it too.

[marcush.]

jumbo,true I had not looked at how they did the braking and accelerating ...
wouldn´t it be possible to just turn the cockpit 90° to simulate the braking ?(High cornering gs and high brakeforce would not come at once.. the transition is surely a big challenge but...

[jakeconway]

I am happy to be corrected with this...but my understanding is that a simulator can easily "simulate" G-Forces up to 1G. For example, 1G breaking can be simulated by tipping your chair 90degrees forward so that you are looking at the ground. A 1G Left Hander can be simulated by tipping you to the right and so on.
As you are "immersed" in the simulator (i.e. you must not be looking at the horizon) you feel the same forces as if you were in the vehicle.

EDIT: Actually I am wrong with this. If you do what I have described above, when you are "on your nose" simulating 1G braking (borrowing the earth's gravitational pull to do it) you have removed the 1G weight that you would normally be sitting on. Therefore this is not a legitimate simulation method.

Therefore...you have to simulate the G force by moving the occupant. 4G braking for 4 seconds would require 4x9.8m/s/s acceleration for 4 seconds (call it 10m/s/s)...which would result in you moving in the simulator at 40m/s (80mph) at the end of the braking zone...with an average speed of 20m/s for 4 seconds...meaning that you would cover 80m to simulate that braking.
Therefore your simulator needs to be the size of a football pitch before you get started.

I am sure I am missing something here...but I think that the basic maths is correct...but I am probably missing some of the tricks to "trick the brain" such as using some of the tilting motion described in the first paragraph!

Not sure that is usefull...but hey, I don't post much so bear with me

[marcush.]

a very long corner in F1 is turn 8 Istambul with 4gs over something like 4 sec--so thats around 39,2m/s²for 4 s ...
if you translate this speed to a radius of the robot arm of 5000mm the arm would have to do 1.35 revolutions per second! quite a challenge this...

as I understand full revolutions are not possible with the robot arm.

[DaveW]

Simulator motion cues are complicated by the fact that a human has only a crude acceleration sensor (essentially only indicating the direction of the acceleration vector). On the other hand he/she has a very sensitive three axis set of rate sensors (that are prone to "topple" after a glass too many). It follows that attempting to simulate acceleration by tilting a driver is bound to give conflicting cues (& is a likely cause of nausea).

Arguably, DIL simulators are useful for:
- learning a track layout
- "procedure" training
- ergonomics studies
- gearing selections.
It is questionable whether full blown motion cues are required for those tasks.

Technically, a simulator will only reproduce (or "repackage") what is known or assumed about a vehicle, its tyres & the track - assuming, of course, that the software is correct (& that is not necessarily a "given"). Hence they are unlikely to provide an insight into problems that, for example, might be caused by transient airflow instabilities, by unintended geometry & compliance compromises, by tyre structural issues, or by imperfect fuel delivery. Track testing is the only way of identifying & solving such problems.

It is the case, I believe, that airline pilots "convert to type" entirely in a simulator (& have the opportunity to fly the real thing only with passengers in tow), but they are not required routinely to explore the performance limits of the hardware.

A test pilot once told me "Flying a simulator is easy. Turn off aircraft & turn on simulator at the start of a session. Reverse the process before climbing into a real aircraft." Says it all, really.

[Jersey Tom]

=Technically, a simulator will only reproduce (or "repackage") what is known or assumed about a vehicle, its tyres & the track - assuming, of course, that the software is correct (& that is not necessarily a "given"). Hence they are unlikely to provide an insight into problems that, for example, might be caused by transient airflow instabilities, by unintended geometry & compliance compromises, by tyre structural issues, or by imperfect fuel delivery. Track testing is the only way of identifying & solving such problems.

This!!! x1000.

[mx_tifoso]

I think DaveW has hit the nail on the head. Simulators don't develop but merely train the drivers for scenarios and help learn what's already there, such as the racing lines, circuit layouts, etc.

[Timstr]

Toyota F1 simulator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW8X4dbJeb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=442rzZpEBo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IFyv0xOaTY

[marcush.]

But.... .this is true for all simulations not only the driving simulator .it´s only as good as you know your set of parameters and the relationships of those.
forget or deliberately get rid of elements and your sim is a waste of time or maybe even lead you in the correct diretion by chance.Or not.

If you got the possibility to model the complete package and actually the driver can drive the model as it were the real thing ..that´s the quivalent of testing on track and would undoubtably be worth an awful lot,as you could explore roads (options)you would not even touch with the time available without having unlimited testing time.

[bcoxa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-Fge3gN9w

[Richied76]

here's a question... If the simulator is there for drivers to train, and the teams spend millions to make them as realistic as humanly possiable.....why no helmet?

[Mystery Steve]

Most of that money is spent developing the car models to more closely recreate reality so that car setup changes can be evaluated more accurately. As mentioned before, the hydraulic actuators are there to give motion cues for the drivers, but it's not recreating the forces experienced in the cockpit, so having a helmet on wouldn't be of much use. The visibility shouldn't be a concern either, since just about all helmets have a panoramic view.