Question XDOF concept

Does anyone else think this has mileage?
I have this idea, based on a few videos I've seen of people making a canopy on the end of a robotic arm.
What I see, is that their movements are not designed to get the best feeling of reality.

We must all agree by now that gravity is the one thing missing from any simulator these days.
BUT.... What if the canopy was mounted sideways, or preferably the robotic knuckle was rotated so the the canopy was facing thus...

and rotated sufficiently fast enough when gravity was needed (remembering that the user onsees information on the screens inside the canopy) and left (or right turns) were created by orientation of the rotational axis about the Z axis...


The rotation only increases when gravity is needed.
Obviously great robotic design strength is needed to move such a beast, and probably 4 or 5 axis.

I lashed these images together to post quickly, as my efforts to use AI generated video, failed miserably.

Any thoughts?

Just think about how often the robot has to turn for one Monza lap....and in terms of weight, how big the robot has to be. Shortly after you will realise there is no benefit or even market. And an robot doesn´t have the ability to realise high acclerations combined with an frequency for roadtextures or anything else. It will feel dumb.

I'm not sure if I interpret your images correctly. I guess you try to make something like this: A 5 or 6DOF motion rig that has at least one axis that can rotate indefinitely so that sustained g-forces >1g can be generated due to centrifugal force.

This should work in theory but leads to a big challange in practice: The centrifugal part needs time to spin up and the seat has to change orientation during the spin-up so that the acceleration vector always points in the right direction not to cause any false cues. This should'n be a problem if you replay a pre-determined track or movie because you know in advance when you'll need the g-forces.

However, in a fighter jet simulation for example the pilot can pull the stick at any time and g-forces should be available instantly at any time. I've seen videos about military simulators which are really big, heavy and expensive machines. The centrifuge is spinning at a constant rate and the pilot is in the center of rotation as neutral position. To generate g-forces the seat is moved outwards on the spinning frame.

This works as long as the pilot is strapped tightly into the seat and his head is in the exactly right position. However, moving your head or you arms feels very strange because of the coriolis forces.

Yes, I too have seen a video like that (it may have been the same one).
IMO, the movement I see there, is not sufficiently honed for flight characteristics.

The sense of gravity is acheived by rotation, like NASA used back in the day, a pod on the end of an arm, as the arm rotated the G force caused the pod to rotate outwards to align with the newly created/imposed force.
NASA's simulator was fixed in the ground, and so the trajectory was fixed, but with a robot the trajectory could change according to the pilots input.

I'm not so sure the axis would need to spin continuously, but only if you needed to maintaine a G force for a particular manoever. Stop me if I'm wrong but G forces are only apparent in acceleration & turns?

And yes, definitely a challenge, expecially the software.

What a great concept, I had to look it up.

Ok, I had time to watch the video @noorbeast posted. It seems that there is no cetrifugal rotation. The large robot arm ist just used to provide more heave and sway range than a normal Stewart platform. This can provide more realistic cues durcing turns but still can't generate more than 1g averaged over a long time.