AirRabbit,
Offered the same way.
I did state "other than technical performance, vibs and latency" My point with Motion systems is that whilst by regulation (on a Level D FSTD) the various buffets and vibrations are accurately matched and that there is aircraft data to support this, all other motion cues are very much subjectively assessed and are typically tuned by the acceptance team at IPA time. All the EASA regs state is that they should be representative! There is no objective standard and no 2 FSTDs of the same aircraft type would necessarily 'feel' the same.
Quote:
I’m not going to repeat myself on the fidelity issue other than to reiterate that there really is no excuse with todays Level C/D FSTDs for anything less than perfection with systems simulation and performance within the normal envelope (within the confines of the obvious technical limitations).
Unfortunately, this statement borders on suffering an internal, self-defeating conflict. The “obvious technical limitations” are what is limiting in some cases and preventing in others, the “perfection of systems simulation and performance.”
I didn't express this too well. By "obvious technical limitations" I was referring to issues such as sustained G. I still strongly believe that today's FSTDs are far more capable and that with desire far more can be achieved from them.
I so wish that the “ponderous” nature of regulatory achievements was not so “ponderous.” But, for whatever it is worth, having some built-in slowness in such endeavors, is probably a good thing, lest we wind up being “hoisted by our own petard.”
It's 3 years already since that FAA response and none of the major regulatory authorities are anywhere nearer adoption. The new technologies they were looking at are probably obsolete already!!