Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-lmk9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T23:29:34.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing motion cueing using an optimisation technique

Part of: Rotorcraft Virtual Engineering Conference 2016

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2018

M. Jones
M. Jones*
Affiliation:
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Department of Rotorcraft, Braunschweig, Germany
*
michael.jones@dlr.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Virtual engineering tools are not currently employed extensively during the certification and commissioning of flight simulator motion systems. Subjective opinion is regarded as sufficient for most applications, as it provides verification that the motion platform does not cause false cueing. However, the results of this practice are systems that may be far from optimal for their specific purpose. This paper presents a new method for tuning motion systems objectively using a novel tuning process and tools which can be applied throughout the simulators life-cycle. The use of the tuning method is shown for a number of simulated test cases.

Keywords

Motionrotorcraftsimulationoptimisation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1249 , March 2018 , pp. 487 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This is a version of a paper first presented at the RAeS Virtual Engineering Conference held at Liverpool University, 8-10 November 2016.

References

REFERENCES

1. Anon . Certification Specifications for Helicopter Flight Simulation Training Devices, European Aviation Safety Agency CS-FSTD(H), Initial Issue, June 2012.Google Scholar
2. Hodge, S., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D. Optimising the yaw motion cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform, Aeronaut J, January 2015, 119, (1211), pp 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Sinacori, J. The Determination of Some Requirements for a Helicopter Flight Simulator Facility, NASA CR-152066, 1977, Mountain View, California, US.Google Scholar
4. Schroeder, J. Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements, NASA TP-1999-208766, July 1999, Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California, US.Google Scholar
5. Hodge, S., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D. Optimising the roll-sway cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform, Aeronaut J, January 2015, 119, (1211), pp 23–44.Google Scholar
6. Beard, S., Reardon, S., Tobias, E. and Aponso, B. Simulation system fidelity assessment at the vertical motion simulator, Proceedings of the 69th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 2013, Phoenix, Arizona, US.Google Scholar
7. Reardon, S. and Beard, S. Evaluation of motion tuning methods on the vertical motion simulator, Proceedings of the 71st American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 2015, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
8. Gouverneur, B., Mulder, J., van Paassen, M., Stroosma, O. and Field, E. Optimisation of the SIMONA research simulator’s motion filter settings for handling qualities experiments, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, August 2003, Austin, Texas, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Pavel, M., Jump, M., Masarati, P., Zaichik, L., Dang-Vu, B., Smaili, H., Quaranta, G., Stroosma, O., Yilmaz, D., Jones, M., Gennaretti, M. and Ionita, A. Practices to identify and prevent adverse aircraft-and-rotorcraft pilot couplings - A ground simulator perspective, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2015, 77, pp 54–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Zaal, P., Schroeder, J.A. and Chung, W. Transfer of training on the vertical motion simulator, J Aircr, November–December 2015, 52, (6), pp 1971–1984.Google Scholar
11. Hodge, S. Dynamic Interface Modelling and Simulation Fidelity Criteria, PhD Thesis, Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, September 2010, Liverpool, p 240.Google Scholar
12. Wentink, M., Valente Pais, R., Mayrhofer, M. and Bles, W. First curve driving experiments in the desdemona simulator, Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference Europe, 2008, Monaco.Google Scholar
13. Barnett-Cowan, M., Meilinger, T., Vidal, M., Teufel, H. and Buelthoff, H. MPI CyberMotion simulator: Implementation of a novel motion simulator to investigate multisensory path integration in three dimensions, J Visual Experiments, 2012, 63.Google Scholar
14. Anon . Showtime für den Seilroboter, Article, Max Planck, https://www.mpg.de/10520930/showtime-fuer-den-seilroboter, 2015. Accessed 10 January 2016 (in German)Google Scholar
15. Fischer, M., Seefried, A. and Seehof, C. Objective motion cueing test for driving simulators, Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference Europe, September 2016, Paris, France.Google Scholar
16. Anon . Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, Volume I - Aeroplanes, 2009, ICAO 625, International Civil Aviation Organisation.Google Scholar
17. Hosman, R. and Advani, S. Design and evaluation of the objective motion cueing test and criterion, Aeronaut J, 2016, 120, (1227), pp 873–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Anon . Objective Motion Cueing Test Implementation, April 2016, NSP GB 16-03, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., US.Google Scholar
19. Hagiwara, T., Advani, S.K., Funabiki, K., Wakairo, K., Muraoka, K. and Nojima, T. Evaluating an objective method for motion cueing fidelity, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, August 2008, Honolulu, HI, US.Google Scholar
20. Roza, M., Meiland, R. and Field, J. Experiences and perspectives in using OMCT for testing and optimising motion drive algorithms, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, August 2013, Boston, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
21. Stroosma, O., van Paassen, M. and Mulder, M. Applying the objective motion cueing test to a classical washout algorithm, Procedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, August 2013, Boston, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
22. Advani, S. and Hosman, R. Revising civil simulator standards - An opportunity for technological pull, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, August 2006, Keystone, Colorado, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Bilimoria, K. and Reardon, S.E. Motion parameter selection for flight simulators, Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation Conference, June 2015, Dallas, Texas, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Advani, S., Nahon, M., Haeck, N. and Albronda, J. Optimization of six-degrees-of-freedom motion systems for flight simulators, J Aircr, September-October 1999, 36, (5).Google Scholar
25. Hosman, R., Advani, S. and Haeck, N. Integrated design of flight simulator motion cueing systems, Aeronaut J, January 2005, 109, (1091).Google Scholar
26. de Ridder, K. and Roza, M. Automatic optimisation of motion drive algorithms using objective motion cueing tests, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Casas, S., Coma, I., Portales, C. and Fernandez, M. Towards a simulation-based tuning of motion cueing algorithms, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, September 2016, 67, pp 137–154.Google Scholar
28. Grant, P. and Reid, L. PROTEST: An expert system for tuning simulator washout filters, J Airc, March–April 1997, 32, (2), pp 152–159.Google Scholar
29. Duda, H., Gerlach, T. and Advani, S. Design of the DLR AVES research flight simulator, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies (MST) Conference, August 2013, Boston, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
30. Kaletka, J. and Butter, U. FHS, the new research helicopter: Ready for service, Proceedings of the 29th European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2003, Friedrichshafen, Germany.Google Scholar
31. Groen, E., Wentink, M., Valente Pias, A., Mulder, M. and Van Paassen, M. Motion perception thresholds in flight simulation, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, August 2006, Keystone, Colorado, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Reid, L. and Nahon, M. Response of airline pilots to variations in flight simulator motion algorithms, J Airc, July 1988, 25, (7), pp 639–646.Google Scholar
33. Jones, M. Optimizing the fitness of motion cueing for rotorcraft flight simulation, Proceedings of the 72nd American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 2016, West Palm Beach, Florida, US.Google Scholar
34. Jones, M. An objective method to determine the fidelity of rotorcraft motion platforms, Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, January 2017, Grapevine, TX, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Anon . Aeronautical Design Standard Performance Specification Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, 2000, ADS-33E-PRF, United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, US.Google Scholar
36. Olsman, W.F.J. and Gursky, B.I. Segment-wise measurement of helicopter approach noise with a reduced microphone setup, Proceedings of the 70th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 2014, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
37. Heffley, R. Application of Task-Pilot-Vehicle (TPV) models in flight simulation, Proceedings of the 66th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 2010, Phoenix, Arizona, US.Google Scholar
38. Hess, R., Zeyada, Y. and Heffley, R. Modeling and simulation for helicopter task analysis, J American Helicopter Soc, 2002, 47, (4), pp 243–252.Google Scholar