Among other things, more realism in every field is what is needed for the sim to be more efficient and fully accepted by the crews.
The display: this is where the most important improvements could be made. What we see in the reality from a few cm to infinity is displayed on a screen at few meters from the crew. I think it is the heart of the problem. It will take a quantum leap in technology to correct this. In the meantime, beefing up the hardware can improve things significantly.
The motion:
SFT
"A good argument can be made for bagging the motion system entirely and just going with a good vibration platform."
Doing this will only increase the difference between the real thing and the sim. A new system has been developped, which responds more effectively to controls inputs without this kick in the ass effect caused by the hydraulic, and which also cuts costs -no need for hydraulic.
Realism means that an input on the controls must be followed immediately by a change in the motion and the display simultaneously.
It also means that the lack of cues other than visual must be adressed, i.e. the noise caused by the airstream increasing with the airspeed.
The full similarity between the sim and the aircraft. Although every effort is made to fulfill this requirement, differences still exist and take some time to be fixed. I think of the AP software mods which are not immediately implemented on the sim.
Ideally, the aircrfat should be developped using a simulator as a tool.
The realism issue could be discussed ad nauseam, it always come down to big money. The slightest modification in the sim system costs an arm.
Sorry for highjacking the thread.
ATN