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
Figure 24. Lateral translational motion perception for Task 2.
The cause for the performance degradation with the addition of rotational platform motion is unknown. The opposite result occurred in Task 1. No attempts were made to explain why with an analytical model; that is left for future work. However, during the model development, a
modeler will face the difficulty of determining how a pilot integrates both the rotational and translational cue.
Subjective Performance Data. Average pilot compensation ratings are shown in figure 29. The improvement in the ratings for the translational motion
conditions, relative to those in the rotational motion conditions, was marginally significant (F(1,4) = 6.38, p = 0.065). The addition of rotational motion resulted in no statistical difference in compensation. The effects of rotational and translational motion did not interact.
No rotation Rotation The same result occurred for rated fidelity, which is presented in figure 30. The addition of translational
Figure 25. Rotational motion perception for Task 2.
Task 3: Yaw Rotational Regulation
motion resulted in an improvement in fidelity ratings that was marginally significant (F(1,4) = 6.15, p = 0.068). The addition of rotational motion again made no differ-
ence. The effects of rotational and translational motion
Objective Performance Data. Figure 26 depicts key variables in a sample run for the Translation+Rotation and Motionless conditions in Task 3. The peak yaw rate for this run was 7.5°/sec (not shown). The peak yaw accelerations for this task were similar to those of Task 1, but the rms accelerations were slightly higher in Task 3 than in Task 1 (5.67°/sec2 versus 4.21°/sec2, respectively). The amount of visual rotation was less in this disturbance-rejection task than in the command task of Task 1. Slightly more acceleration overshoots were present when motion was removed.
Figure 27 depicts, for the four motion conditions, the means and standard deviations of the number of times pilots had an excursion outside ±1° about north per run. When translational motion was added, the decrease in were statistically independent.
Figure 31 illustrates the percentage of the time that pilots reported the presence of lateral translational motion. The addition of translational motion significantly increased the number of reports of lateral translational motion (F(1,4) = 12.1, p = 0.025). Interestingly, the addition of rotational motion led to a marginally significant decrease in the reports of lateral translational motion (F(1,4) = 5.4, p = 0.08).
Figure 32 illustrates the percentage of the time that pilots reported the presence of rotational motion. No significant effects were found, with rotation being reported an average of 73% of the time, independent of the motion configuration.
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 Time, sec Time, sec
50
High
40
No translation
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(28)
|
