New Rig
 

How does this look for a new rig?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/9386740.stm

Cool, but it looks like it uses the rotation of the plane's axes as reference. It doesn't appear to compute the G-forces working on the 'avatar'. If the price is right, it would'n be a bad addition. It's no ForceDynamics 401 though, but that has a different pricetag. :D

..and how are you supposed to "compute the G-Forces" on a simulator? :rolleyes:

You can replace g forces (to a certain extend) by pitching up, for +g and pitching down for -g. You have to enclose the device though. It's very convincing as long as the outside picture is in synch with what you're feeling. Level D sim pitches up while you accelerate for takeoff. Once acceleration is done it slowly pitches down again. As you rotate the plane the sim pitches up again. It takes good programming to synch all the motion and physical cues together. If not, you'll get sick fast.

BigC208 is right. I was lucky enough to ride in a full motion 747 simulator a while back. The g-forces you 'feel' on take-off and landing are 100% convincing.

PPanPan

Indeed. As there is no vertical movement in the motion pit above, it has to use the earth's gravity as the resulting G-force vector.

When for example the aircraft accelerates down the runway, the pit would pitch back to a certain angle, so that the simulated G-force from the acceleration "A" and the earths gravity "G" would combine in the force "F" on the avatar's body. If the acceleration of the aircraft is ~9.8m/s (1g), the pit would pitch back 45 degrees. It's not possible to increase the gravity with a stationary 3-axes motion pit, so no way to get "F" to 1.41g. :) If the aircraft with a tricycle gear were to brake with 2g, the pit would pitch forward 63.4 degrees.

I'm afraid you guys are a bit confused about the way G-forces interact with your body..
Pitching or rolling in an average commercial sim (like the Steward platform based ones) won't give you no appreciable simulation of G-forces (only a mere peak at 1.5 G at all), it will just simulate the bank or pitch angle at which you're flying.
The most advanced simulator is the DESDEMONA one, which is a combination of Steward platform plus a centrifugal one, and even if capable of sustained G-forces up to 3G, it's still nothing close to the average G forces you can achieve in an aerobatic plane or high performance aircraft.

info about DESDEMONA http://www.amst-germany.de/publics/desdemona_pub.htm

G-manouvers are because of centrifugal force, so the only effective way to reproduce those is to be in a centrifugal machine (which also doesn't give a full simulation because it doesn't take into account lateral loads, but only "head-to-toe" ones).

More important than G simulation would be a 360° view, imho.

Swiss, I think G simulation comes first because it's the main fatigue factor for a pilot. A 360 degrees view can be achieved with goggles or screens, there are clever ways around it.
No matter how good your aeroplane is, if you can't withstand G loads you're gonna be more vulnerable. I tell you this from personal experience: 15 minutes of intense aerobatic sessions can easily turn you into a sweatball. The first time I did aerobatics in a Mustang (and I was just a passenger!) I was in shock: it's all so physically intense that the idea of actually concentrating on a dogfight whilst being squeezed at 5.7 Gs is unfathomable unless you have been training hard..

I always think about it when I see our dogfights in the sim, where people keep on merrily pulling Gs for 20 minutes without actually thinking of how they would be exhausted by then... (which reminds me to post this on the "suggestions for Ilya" post!)

But you cant reproduce 5.7G in a machine which fits in your basement.
You sure could make people vomit though.

So, if I had the choice between these two...