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
The damping ratio of the above filter was held fixed at
0.7. The two parameters that are used to then keep the motion system within its displacement limits for a given math model and task are K and ω . To reduce simulator motions, either K is reduced or ω is increased. Achieving the proper balance between these two possible ways of reducing the motion, while trying to minimize a loss in motion fidelity, is not well defined. The criterion suggested by Sinacori and discussed in section 1 was used to select the characteristics of the motion configurations.
To validate or modify the criterion, 10 sets of gains and natural frequencies were chosen to span the criterion, as shown in figure 38. The values for the filter are given in table 3. Note that configurations V3 and V4, from table 3, result in gain and phase-distortion coordinates of [0.970, 45.0] and [0.795, 80.0], respectively. Although these filters have unity gain at high frequencies (K = 1), the dynamics of the high-pass filter cause the above attenuations and phase distortions at 1 rad/sec, which is the frequency used to plot the motion filters against the criterion.
Table 3. Motion-filter quantities for vertical tracking.
Vertical
Configuration K ω
(rad/sec)
V1 1.000 0.010
V2 0.901 0.245
V3 1.000 0.521
V4 1.000 0.885
V5 0.650 0.245
V6 0.670 0.521
V7 0.300 0.245
V8 0.309 0.521
V9 0.377 0.885
V10 0.000 —
Procedure
For the pilot to rate the motion fidelity of each configuration, a baseline was established for comparison. The baseline specified that the pilots perform the task first with 1:1 motion; this was a calibration run. Here, the pilots were told that they had 1:1 motion, and that the sensations they were feeling were to be interpreted as the “actual aircraft.” The motion fidelity of all future config-urations was then compared to this 1:1 motion baseline configuration. This testing procedure allowed immediate back-to-back comparisons of the effects of motion parameter changes. This procedure mitigates some of the problems that occur in simulation fidelity experiments that compare the actual aircraft to the simulation back-to-back, even when the events occur in the same day.
During the evaluations, the pilots had no knowledge of the configuration changes, except when they were told of the full-motion “calibration runs.” Still, the 1:1 motion case (configuration V1 in table 3) was also evaluated; during its evaluation, the pilot was not told he had the
1:1 configuration.
Pilots A and C completed all the configurations listed in table 3 in one session, Pilot B completed all the config-urations in two sessions, and all of the configurations were evaluated by all three pilots. Some configurations were repeated if time permitted. For each configuration, pilots assigned a motion-fidelity rating using the defini-tions in figure 4. Then, the pilots answered questions regarding the aircraft’s characteristics, their task perfor-mance, and the compensation required to perform the task. The pilots were also asked to estimate the relative use of the motion and visual feedback cues.
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(33)
|
