Quote from Hangar45 Admin on December 18, 2017, 8:31 pm

(Original thread started on 06-21-12 by Mike Badger)

I have been looking for a possible relatively low cost solution for motion but not to the detail that most sim guys are. I am not trying to mimic a full 6DOF motion base that is just way to expensive. My idea of motion is a system that offers the right ques at the right time for things such as landings, turbulence, etc. Today I was just surfing the net and came across this company and their motion bases look down right perfect providing I can find a motion controller that will take the info from FSX and pass it along.

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 06-21-12)

I was very close to building a motion base platform in the beginning. As a matter of fact, before I started building anything, I was torn between starting with the shell or the motion base platform. I am glad I started with the shell.

 

As it turns out, ideally, we want to fly as smooth as possible for our paying passengers. Keeping "the ball" in the center of the turn coordinator is the name of the game in this case. Therefore, the most important movement of the Lear45 motion base would be tilting forward and backward to replicate acceleration and deceleration. And your right, the second most important thing to add if possible is turbulence, a little shaking. Of course the other degrees of freedom are nice to have but if we are on a budget, what are we gonna do?

 

I know DonnyRay Jones is seriously looking into building a motion base system. He is also limited by an eight foot ceiling so it would be interesting to see what he comes up with.

 

(Posted by Will Sasse on 06-22-12)

I've been looking at these things:

http://www.ckas.com.au/2dof_low_cost_systems_50.html

 

I figure the only thing we normally feel is acceleration/deceleration, and turbulence, which can all be simulated with a 2DOF system. Not cheap, but it would be nice to be able to integrate one into the build.

 

(Posted by Mark L. on 06-22-12)

Again, from what I saw is the max of 500lbs and the platform size isn't large enough. It gets real spendy for their 2 seater platform. Not sure what a finished shell with all the internals weighs and then add up to 2 people if it would be under that. I know for me, I'd have to lose some serious poundage if it were close.

 

(Posted by Rick Trantham on 06-22-12)

Interesting stuff guys. The acceleration and turbulence effects aren't difficult to get out of FSX using SimConnect. I've got something working now that does this in small scale using linear servos.

 

The big issue is the weight and the speed limitation of the servos in full sale. They are improving them all the time though and I think we're not too far off from a solution.

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 06-22-12)

The only problem with any kind of a real motion system, such as tilting the sim backwards to simulate acceleration is the visual system following it. In my case, I would need to mount the projectors on top of the sim (rather than on the ceiling) so that the visual system would look correct. If your using LCD screens, this would be easy. Just mount them to the sim.

 

(Posted by Mike Badger on 06-22-12)

Yeah Ron the whole mounting the screen and projectors to the platform pretty much kills off a true motion system due to big engineering undertaking necessary to get it all part of one platform that is why I am always on the lookout for those subtle jolts and bounces that happen quickly and in a small dimensions.

 

As far as weight on this airbag system it can accommodate nearly 2400lbs if their picture of 12 bodies is accurate in their images, their specs of an avg human weight of 200lbs so this is way more than our sims would weigh including two pilots by nearly half.

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 06-22-12)

Here is what I know, you can either have a projector/screen system or a motion system. You can't have both. If your going to do any kind of motion system you will need to plan to use three if not five large LCD screens mounted to the sim so that everything moves together.

 

The reason being is that trying to keep three images perfectly lined up is going to be nearly impossible with the sim, projectors and screen bouncing around. As it is, it takes a lot to line up three projectors perfectly even with nothing moving around.

 

(Posted by Eric Tomlin on 06-23-12)

Ron, that's not entirely the case. Most modern Level D sims have projection into a screen that stays perfectly aligned due to rigid construction. It's even possible for us lowly home builders to accomplish this- simply take a look at Matthew Sheil's 747-400 sim in Australia- full 6DOF motion and three channel visuals via projector. Works great! Just lots of space and money required!

 

Check his website out here:

http://www.hyway.com.au/747/747.html

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 06-23-12)

Well your right, it is possible. And one day maybe it's possible we will have a L45 sim builder with a real hangar bay and six figures of cash to spend on the project to make this happen! Until then, I stand by my statement that I would not attempt motion with projection based on the resources and space that we all seem to have to work within. First off, we would need at least 10 if not 12 feet of vertical space so that we had no physical limits.

 

I have seen this guys sim before and it is simply awesome! But this is nothing like what we are building. I think it is safe to say from the looks of his project that he has more space, money and resources than all of us here in the hangar put together. This is my ultimate dream but who can afford the next best thing to a multi million dollar level D sim?

 

So yes, your right, it is possible and actually preferable, but you have to have the space and money to make it work correctly. I would love to see this one day.

 

(Posted by Randy Buchanan on 06-25-12)

I have been thinking about this one for awhile and I not so sure we need the screen to move. I think Mike's idea is funny but it brings to mind we might not need allot of movement to bring some realism. Small real earthquakes scare us but the actual movement is not that much. Does anyone out there have a working version of something which moves at all? I thought I saw a vendor who had a small platform which had a small motor with a cam on each corner that did not move allot but did not cost allot either. Here is a guy who has all kinds of links (I got lost in) but also has all kinds of ideas.

 

http://www.simprojects.nl/index.htm

 

And this is a fun video and by the way only has 3 axes not 6.

https://youtu.be/1xb5me-Bhpo

 

Nothing against a $15,000,000.00 Box, but it is not us.

 

(Posted by Eric Tomlin on 06-25-12)

Just remember that if you move the sim very much at all and the visuals are not moving in sync, you will get sick!

 

(Posted by Eric Tomlin on 02-15-13)

Here is an excellent article detailing findings of the importance of motion simulators vs. stationary simulators: http://www.avweb.com/news/features/flight_simulation_motion_study_experiment_faa_208174-1.html

 

The full study is here:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508414.2012.663247

 

(Posted by DonnyRay Jone on 02-15-13)

"Fly as you train and train as you fly."

If you can find me a real aircraft that does not produce motion during operation I will concede that this study may have some merit. But until you find that motionless aircraft - and having flown many airplanes, static base and full motion base sims including the Space Shuttle full motion sim - I will say "baloney!"

 

Read the full study carefully. It's filled with inconclusive results, and words like "perhaps" and "possibly". But it does document some clear advantages of motion that cannot readily be achieved in non-motion trainers.

 

I myself always like more blinky lights and shiny things. It's hard to beat good techno-airplane-pron.

 

Motion is what *makes* the high-fidelity sim experience complete. But it must be done "well" in order for the human brain to integrate it with the other senses. Many of the so-called motion platforms you see today are little more than a backyard swing set with some motors attached. Gimmicks. NOT an integrated part of the sim/display subsystems, but something tacked on later. As someone else pointed out, this kind of motion system is worse than none at all. Not only does it not contribute to the experience, it detracts from it.

 

I have always planned to integrate a motion base into my sim as a future phase of development. That's still my plan, because I spent a number of years as an engineer on Link Corporation simulators, and I *know* what a high-fidelity motion system contributes to the overall experience. It's not particularly hard, but it does require some rather specialized knowledge.

 

Think of the motion aspect of a sim the way a chef thinks of a fine entree'. There are many layers of flavors that all contribute something essential to the overall result. If you leave out the salt, for example, it's easy to tell that they missed something in the kitchen. In a sim we have many tools and techniques with which to build the overall experience. The sound of the aircraft and engines, the sights out the windshield as well as the interior lighting and instruments, the physical feel of the controls, switches, throttles, the pressure of ventilation air on the skin, the feel transmitted to the body by transducers like Buttkickers, even the smell of airplane parts. And finally, motion. None of these alone can produce the fidelity we desire. But together you get what is known as "The sum is greater than the parts."

 

I've flown lots of airplanes and lots of motion sims. I know first-hand how much difference a well-done motion base adds to the experience. That's why it has always been in my design requirements.

 

The major design challenges for a motion base suitable for our sims are created by the first constraint: Budget. I don't have a blank check in mine, and I suspect few others do either. This means that, design wise, we have to think like Mattel, not like NASA. Readily available materials, clever design, and a simple to reproduce implementation.

 

In class D simulators the motion base and (out-the-windows) displays are parts of the SAME subsystem. They're not treated as separate systems, because the imagery and the motions must be tightly integrated to fool the human senses. Most of this integration is done in custom software. I think the biggest challenge for us is finding a way to model the movement system without use of custom-built hardware and code.

 

Assuming that's achievable (not a given in my mind) the next biggest challenge is imposed by our various "hangars". Almost all of us have our sims in a room with a standard 8-foot ceiling. That dimension alone imposes considerable difficulty in how you fabricate a base. If you figure out the geometry of this using the normal flight envelope max up/down pitch angles and an 8-foot ceiling, you'll quickly realize that the motion base CANNOT be any taller than 26". How are we going to build a cheap, easy to replicate, adequately faithful, motion base that fits in 26"? I dunno the answer to that question yet, but I know there is one. I've built a couple of scale concept models just to see if the basic ideas are sound. They are, but it's a long road of development between a model and a working prototype.

 

Here's a question for all to consider: If someone told you that you would need a "footprint" of 15'X12' with a ten foot ceiling in order to put a motion base/display on your sim, would that be a barrier to your doing it? I'm thinking it would for most of us, but what if that system cost $4,000 +/-. Would the amazingly low cost make it worth finding a larger hangar, or would the size simply put it out of reach? I ask that because a design can be done to "cost" or to "function", but rarely will the market bear the cost of both. What would it take to make it possible for us average simmers?

 

(Posted by Terry Collins on 02-15-13)

I tend to agree with the findings in the article. I can get pretty immersed flying my partially finished fixed base simulator, and it will be so much better when complete. I'm an ex pilot so maybe that helps (as suggested). Having said that, I like the idea of using tactile pressures in the seat to provide some sense of motion - it would be a great project to take on here and a lot more simple and less expensive than a full motion base.

 

(Posted by Eric Williams on 02-15-13)

I have to agree with both sides a bit. I think skill sets like navigation, checklist related items, proper procedure etc are just fine in a non-motion SIM but... full motion/the real thing will always be drastically different.

 

Anyhow, I think both motion and non have their place, but neither really fully can prepare one for all situations unless practiced in real aircraft.

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 02-15-13)

If I had the space, time and money, I would have built a full motion simulator. I think it would really add to the experience of simulated flight. But with that said, I have flown the Navy's P3 Orion simulator and it did not have the motion activated but it still played trick on me because of the full immersion. We are all limited by space and funds. We kinda have to work within our means right?

 

(Posted by Randy Buchanan on 02-16-13)

Ron hit the nail on the head. Eric says the same thing. It is all about immersion. So the more elements we can have which contribute to our perception that what we are doing is real the better. Most of us have three monitors to look out the window. And if you watch a student flying your sim you may see him or her leaning left or right based on what they see. I know from my instructor experience that the more senses one can involve in the teaching experience the better the training.

 

Point in passing Terry, this device you are talking about lends support the phrase " Flying by the seat of his pants". At any rate, three monitors are better than one, sound is better, I bet we would say touching real knobs is more real than clicking on a mouse although there maybe some discussion about a touch screen as being more real. So is motion in the sim desirable? You bet. Can we all afford it not so much. Afford here can also mean space, DonnyRay and most of us with 8' ceilings and it also brings a question I have which is: Is the way more expense six degrees of motion that much better than say three degrees of motion?

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 02-17-13)

I really like the idea of dynamic motion in just the seats rather than all the problems to overcome working out the issues with making the entire sim move.

 

Here is an interesting site that uses motion actuators. This site says that they also cater to flight simulators but I have not got that far. In any case, if I were to get a set of these I would make some cosmetic changes to them to make them look more like what we would find in our Lear45 sims.

http://www.d-box.com/en/business/technology

 

Here is a little more detailed information on just the actuators and the control module that we are interested in. They have 3.5mm of max movement which is good. We would not want more than that. The actuators are 11.5" long which means a lot of it will be protruding out the bottom of the sim base floor. (Not a problem if you have a base made with 2 X 6 or greater.

 

Physically I can make this work! What I don't have a clue about is the source code from the flight simulator program that will send signals to the actuators. But this is the same problem that we would have if we were creating motion for the whole sim, so the answer to this is out there as well.

 

It looks like they have also taken care of our source code:

http://www.d-box.com/en/consumer/support_download

 

Click on "Gaming" To my surprise, they have FSX and even Xplane available for download!  It looks like this site is a one stop shop or our motion needs!!!!!

 

(Posted by Will Sasse on 02-17-13)

We are building an experience, not an actual Flight Training Device (FTD). Although capable of performing duties as a Fixed Base FTD, that is not really our purpose.

 

I think that anything we can do to increase the input from our senses will improve our experience, and motion is part of that, be it seat-motion or full-motion.

 

Its only a matter of cost, space, and time - no real issues there for us!!

 

In an ideal world I would have one of theses [url=http://www.ckas.com.au/Home_1.html]CKAS Motion Platform (Link)[/url] with a collimated display visuals system. When you have devised a kit for this, call me!

 

(Posted by Ron Rollo on 02-17-13)

When I first started this project I was torn 50/50 between starting with a motion base system like this or starting with the full size shell. As the story goes, everyone knows which direction I took. And I am glad I went with the shell path first.

 

I would love to have a full motion simulator but it is not practical for the space I have to work within and second, the money it would cost. The other big problem is that when your building a full scale sim on a full motion platform, don't forget that everything has to move. What I mean by this is the cockpit, projection screens and projectors all have to move together. (Although I would just make a larger screen and make it so that only the cockpit and projectors move together.)

 

If I had started with the motion base first, the shell would look nothing like it does now. I would have planed on using three large LCD screens and a much shorter shell with no external details on the outside.  But starting with the shell has allowed me to uncover so many clues as to how the cockpit all goes together especially in areas like the floor lines and areas around the windscreens.

 

I am really excited about doing the research on the motion seats and getting to work on them, hopefully by this summer.  This company in Canada that I have been looking at very closly seems to be able to solve our long lost quest to have a motion base platform for our L45 simulators in a 8 foot ceiling room.

 

First check this video out using only three actuators. Look at how fast and accurate they are.

https://youtu.be/5tdoQCUrtgs

 

They sell these in kits or sets of four and each one of them can lift a maximum of 400 lbs. (I think I am OK in my sim when you add the weight of the two pilots and everything else inside.) This design will add no vertical height to your sim if you can find a way to mount the actuators to each of your four corners. (Our you can go with 3 actuators if you can keep it under the weight limit.) And because each actuator has a maximum travel of only 35mm, there is no need to worry about having the projectors and screen follow the sims every move. (Although I know that it would look more realistic if it did.) Now that I know this is possible I have to ask myself if this is something that I really want. Will it shake the heck out of my sim and cause all kinds of havoc?

 

In any case, it looks like these cylinder actuators are the key to simplify our motion simulators without having them 18 to 36 inches off the floor.