Looks pretty cool!
Been watching this [motion] space for months. The above (and their Gen 1) are intriguing for sure. I do have some questions though
Cords. Esp. with the yaw axis; I’ve seen YT videos where they just keep spinning and spinning. The cords! All your toys (VR, HOTAS) would have to be wireless. The roll/pitch axis likely not nearly the issue, and likely all I’d need for flight sims. And a roll/pitch only model should reduce the space needed.
Motion compensation for VR. I think they have a solution but no details.
Interface and latency: I’ve seen them demo’d for DCS and XP but not sure of the interface or extra cost for that software. There would have to be zero (perceptible) latency, at least in VR or puke-city.
The actual forces seem, to me, at first glance, backwards. Nothing fixed would ever really simulate G I guess. Your brain, in VR anyway, might have the desired reaction/compensation or your stomach will have the equal, and opposite, reaction - with your lunch.
I LOVE the idea but am going to watch from the fence for a while.
I see a lot of comments about motion platforms and most people seem to be impressed with the fact that there is movement and that it looks cool… But I keep thinking ”but is it realistic?”
Judging from my experience with haptic feedback, I’d say that if I could have a motion platform that just enhanced the rumbling and shaking I get from the bass shakers, I’d be happy. It only has to lean slightly i pitch and roll and maybe a little in yaw, although that motion doesn’t really seem to be necessary…
You probably have to try one of the motion rides at an amusement park before you get the idea of how effective these things can be
Or maybe hitch a ride on a Level D Sim!
There are probably others, but the ones I tried just made me sick.
Never been sick in an aircraft for over two decades of flying in the worst kind of turbulence and even acro. Well, there was that one time when I had pulled a tooth and went flying upside-down…
The thing is that many motion platforms seem to focus more on simulating position instead of acceleration.
Done that too…
Doing biannual proficiency checks in full flight sims. They are very effective in simulating accelerations.
If a motion platform is supposed to simulate flight, it has to be very powerful to be fast enough. I don’t think this particular platform is. At least not for what we see in the video. In fact, I think one could reduce the displacement and get a better simulation, but that would perhaps not look as good in a sales video
When my brother got his wings in P-Cola, we had a chance to try out the full motion helo-sims with the motion turned off. The full visual immersion combined with the lack of actual motion did a number on my vestibular system even with 386 level graphics running off giant 1980’s hard drives. Fast forward to 2018, I had a chance to try out a professional level racing simulator at Circuit of the Americas. One of the advantages of being over my departments driving program is I get to meet interesting people. It is a 6 axis solution, that is powered by industrial components, it will snap a wrist or thumb without even trying. Hit the brakes hard and you will have bruises from the 5 point harness. It has very little motion, but a ton of acceleration and was honestly the most realistic simulator driving experience I’ve ever had. It legitimately felt like driving a car at speed.
So I agree the motion is probably way over done for demo purposes, and I doubt it has the power to provide the acceleration need to feel quite right.
Wondered about that myself; low latency with smooth action and you shouldn’t need a lot of travel, at least in VR. Just enough to get the inner ear…doing…its…hurl… Never mind
There ya go, that’s what I was thinking, or trying to say. Makes sense.
Never having flown a plane before I can’t really speak. But I know from experiences at various amusement parks (such as Disney) that full motion platforms, for safety reasons most likely, usually don’t really switch directions that fast.
Their manipulation of your sense of spatial positioning and perception of gravity seems to lean heavily on the fact that you’re completely enclosed within the ride, with no other input/cues as to your real orientation.
Using a motion simulator at home for racing (for instance) combined with a monitor is, I suspect, probably less effective than using a VR headset with such a device, which once again forces you back to relying much more strongly on the visuals (within the HMD) as your primary source of information on spatial orientation and sense of acceleration.
(not sure I explained my reasoning effectively)
Dunno if it counts but I flew the Airforce Tornado sim for “testing purposes” and that platform was VICIOUS!
Going from rolling fast left to rolling fast right (might have been a low altitude, fast canyon run , I can’t remember correctly) nearly had me smash my head against the cockpit sides.
It was glorious!
The tech was old but maintained to supreme efficiency, no money was spared.
Three pair of hydraulic-driven legs moving a tiny cockpit assembly with a minimalistic visual.
Managed a complete flight, from take off to landing with no safeties.
Wish I had a chance to fly that thing for real…
That does sound fun!
For normal users which I include myself the jetseat takes some beating. The extra sensory input in VR is as close as I feel the need to real flying. The trouble with a set up that moves is space to set it up. Fine when I lived in a 6 bedroom farmhouse but a problem with a 3 bedroom semi-detached box