曝光台 注意防骗 网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
0
0
-50
-50
-100
-100
-150
-150
5
5
0
0
-5
-5
50
50
0
0
-50
-50
2
2
1
1
0
0
-1
-1
-2 -2 0 20406080 0 20406080 Time, sec Time, sec
100
100
50
50
10
High
8
6
Translation No translation
Translation
No. of overshoots
Rms pedal rate, in/sec
Compensation
4 2
Fidelity
Med. No translation
0
Low
-2
No rotation Rotation
No rotation Rotation
Figure 23. Motion fidelity for Task 2.
Figure 20. Measured performance for Task 2.
2
1.5
No translation
Figure 24 illustrates pilot reports of whether lateral translational motion was present. There were significantly more reports of lateral translational motion when it was
present (70%), than when it was not (5%) (F(1,4) = 14.8, p = 0.018). There was no significant effect of rotational motion on lateral translational motion reports, nor was there any significant rotational motion and lateral translational motion interaction (unlike Task 1).
In the reporting of rotational motion, the rotational and translational motion factors interacted (fig. 25) (F(1,4) = 20.0, p = 0.011). Rotational motion was reported 90% of the time when translational motion was present, both when rotational motion was actually present and when it was absent. Only when translational motion was absent did the presence of rotational motion lead to increased reports of rotational motion. When no motion was presented, rotational reports occurred 27% of the time on average, but increased to 65% of the time when a rotational motion was added.
1
Translation
0.5
0
No rotation Rotation
Figure 21. Control rate for Task 2.
Extens.
Consid.
Mod.
Min.
No rotation Rotation
Figure 22. Pilot compensation for Task 2.
To summarize the results for this task, lateral translational motion was again the key motion variable. Its addition reduced control activity, improved motion fidelity, and led to the belief that rotational motion was also present when it was not present. These results are similar to those of Task 1, except for the interesting result that the addition of rotational motion degraded performance slightly in Task 2.
% of time trans. mot. reported
100%
0%
No rotation Rotation
the number of overshoots was statistically significant (F(1,4) = 8.06, p = 0.047). The addition of rotational motion did not yield a significant difference. The effects of rotational and translational motion did not interact in this measure.
Figure 28 illustrates the pedal rate for the four configurations. Unlike the results for the previous two tasks, the addition of translational motion did not signifi-cantly reduce the rms pedal rate. However, the addition of rotational motion actually increased pedal rate (F(1,4) = 18.74, p = 0.012). The rotational and translational motion effects did not interact. So this is another case in which the addition of rotational motion made matters worse; however, as figure 28 shows, the percentage increase in control rate was not dramatic.
直升机网 www.helicopter.cn
直升机翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(27)
|
