Originally Posted by FullWings
Very interesting to hear what’s happening (or might happen) on the technical sim side.
Do you think we are approaching the simulator equivalent of “uncanny valley”, in that minor (and not so minor) differences between them and reality that used to be all part of the experience are now becoming more obvious because of the overall increase in fidelity? The first sim I “flew” had no visuals, no sound, no motion and clockwork instruments but boy did it seem real at the time, especially to a cadet trying to impress his instructor!
Excellent question, FullWings.
For the unaware, FullWings’ reference to “uncanny valley” comes from the following:
The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of human aesthetics which holds that when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among some human observers. The "valley" refers to the dip in a graph of the comfort level of humans as subjects move toward a healthy, natural human likeness described in a function of a subject's aesthetic acceptability. Examples can be found in the fields of robotics and 3D computer animation, among others. Note the movie, "Avatar."
FullWings … no … what I see has no such implications and, as far as I know, no such implication has been raised by anyone associated with flight simulation at any level. Initially, the motivation for the use of simulation was simple and direct – cost and availability … but the fact was, the simulation used was minimal and its primary contribution was that of “procedural understanding” and not “skill development.” The first sims I flew were just like the ones you describe – “no visuals, no sound, no motion and clockwork instruments” but the fact was there was very little “aerodynamic accuracy.” However, when one considers the benefit to procedural knowledge and understanding, particularly when combined with the existing level of “realism” in the function of the equipment and its relative location, it provided quite adequate practice of cockpit procedures that were notably better than referencing a page out of a manual or even an enlarged photograph mounted on a wall. When the airplane systems “interoperability” in these simulators got to the point of being mostly accurate, another rung on the ladder toward accuracy was achieved.
Actually, with each advancement made (sound, visuals, weather simulation, daylight, the introduction of high speed computers, etc., etc.) another rung (or several) was achieved. However, it was some time before competent aviation professionals actually accepted that “flight training” could be accomplished in a properly designed, constructed, and evaluated simulation device … and even then, there was a requirement that training be “completed” in the relevant airplane, and that the “check ride” would be accomplished in the airplane as well. In the US, anyway, it wasn’t until the very late 1970s that advancements were made in computer science, the methods used in acquiring flight test data, the methods used to reduce that raw flight test data into programs that could be used by the newest, highest speed computers available, and a policy was developed and refined that described the how such flight simulation would be designed, built, evaluated, and used that the US FAA moved very gingerly into the realm of what was called the FAA’s “Advanced Simulation Plan” – consisting of simulation “levels,” only the highest of which allowed full flight training AND the necessary “flight” check, to be accomplished in a flight simulator. Analysis of how do all of this better, more broadly, AND more narrowly in each area has continued over the intervening years.
Sometimes this industry gets the cart before the horse and sometimes it gets focused on one point and let adjacent points slide out of focus – the most recent out-of-focus issue was, described in general terms, as stall recovery. The term was understood differently by major participants, some wanted more details, some wanted “one size fits all,” some were more focused on “procedures to be followed,” some were focused on the accuracy of the simulation. When one considers “the viability” and “the repeatability” of something whose very definition embodies the concepts of “randomness” and “variability” (like an aerodynamic stall) it doesn’t take long to recognize that formulating a computer program to reproduce a “same conditions” profile for those kinds of random and variable events is not something that is easily accomplished – if at all. But very bright minds and very determined folks have been working to be able to provide a simulation that is closer to an actual aerodynamic stall in a simulator than has ever been achieved previously. More of the same is certainly to come – but it’s going to be harder to achieve and once implemented its going to take instructors who are specifically trained on the capabilities and limitations of each simulator they are to use in conducting that training or those checks.