100mm or 150 mm

I am starting to slowly put together a parts list and pricing for my project. and wondering if i should go 150mm on the scn5 actuators or 100mm will be a 2dof for sim racing.

thanks

also, can the actuators able to handle moving a 2dof like the simcraft one, where the whole cockpit moves with the screen and seat etc....and will the xsim software work for that way of motion ?

thanks

The answer to your question depends largely on the type of simulator that you are building, your space contraints (with regard to actuator angle), your maximum target occupant weight, and your mild vs. wild preference. ;D In short, we need more info in order to assist you in answering your own question.

With regard to moving an entire platform (seat, pedals, steering, etc..), yes, the SCN5's can do this. However, there is a speed vs. load tradeoff. Additionally, while it may at first seem logical that this platform design would be more realistc, further conversation and testing will reveal that this simulator design does much less to fool your brain and therefore results in a less immersive simulation experience.

:

ok, room is restricted..lol I only get so much room allocated for my gaming ;D

I only do sim racing...on road or oval and pretty inclusive to iracing.

I think i should start small, get a hang of the software/hardware diy..., i suppose i can always go bigger since I have all that i need in the future..... i will be using my existing play seat. and from reading and talking with one guy that has made one, he has showed me that the chair moving and everything else stationary is the way to go. also your input..

I am following Mr Burns simulator guide and for that I am greatful.
I am pretty good at mc gyvering and riging up the seat and swivel and base etc. will be from stuff I have lying around in the garage and at work, only thing is the electronics and the actuators where i have found where to get them.

the swivel i have a inner tie rod that will work perfect i am pretty sure

I will try to keep you all posted on my progress, though it may be long 8)

when i do start I will start a new thread and hope to be of inspiration to others 8)

oh and I weight 180 lbs wet..

Sounds like the answer for you is a 2DOF SCN5 100mm motion seat to start.

Debate and discussion on the subject is always good for SimRacing (and Flight Sim):

I will have to respectfully disagree with that interpretation. While there have been multiple discussions about seat-movers vs full motion chassis on the various simracing forums (RSC, iRacing) there is research the deals directly with this question from Phillip Denne.

This is my more lengthy interpretation of the article but I will say positively that the hybrid moving/vibrating seat-only moving cockpit placed inside a FULL motion chassis (Denne's ultimate recommendation) seems like an awesome idea.

I endorse the idea of a motion upgradeable cockpit that you can continue to advance throughout your racing career.
year 1 – bought a seat, controls, and the spousal approval
year 3 or 2 – bought some full motion hardware
year 2 or 3 – bought some seat moving hardware
year 4 – marriage counseling with what's her name
year 5 – bought some more full motion hardware

Note that year 2 and 3 are based on what you want to start off with; seat-mover or full-motion?

Michael Boardman
SimCraft Information Officer

Hey Michael

ok, i just barely got wife approval for this so, your saying that you can put the x-sim motion seat in the full motion cockpit? holy wow!!
the motion seat will only costs me 900 bucks, so the next step will be a couple more years and alot more room lol and some most likely counseling

I'm not sure that this warrants a reply, but in the interest of science and educatation, here is my analysis:


-Most of the comparitive points in Phillip Denne's paper actually seem to be comparing and contrasting all other simulation theories and mechanisms with the concept of a 6DOF platform, which at the time of his writting appeared to be based on hydraulics. His ultimate conclusion was that placing a motion seat atop a 6DOF platform would be the ideal simulator.As far as I know, you don't produce a 6DOF platform, and I can't otherwise see how this paper helps to justify your design theory.

-I cannot be sure when this paper was written, but based on the analysis, I can only speculate that it is extremely old and based on the capabilities of electric actuators as they were many years ago.

-This study doesn't give much consideration to neuromuscular training and response time training which are two of the most important aspects of simulation for actual race car drivers. Instead, the focus is mainly on sensory perception and the ability to create sustained sensations.

-This paper makes a great point about no simulation being better than bad simulation for training purposes. To be fair, this seems to be somewhat refering to the concept of neuromuscular training and muscle memory. I couldn't agree more with this point. In our lab tests, a great deal of emphasis is placed on eliminating and reducing what we refer to as unrealistc cues.

-It seems that you have taken the following line from Phillip Denne's research:

It follows that poor quality motion systems actually have a negative
training effect. It has often been argued that no motion at all is better – and cheaper - than bad motion. - Phillip Denne

...and then looked for an unrealistic cue in the 2DOF motion seat design and arrived at the seat moves when the wheel doesn't as a potential candidate for an unrealistic motion cue. Now stating this one unrealistic cue, you have attempted to arrive at the conclusion that your simulator design is superior to a motion seat. Are we to believe that you have eliminated ALL unrealistic cues from your simulator design. Of course you haven't (noone has) and if you have one unrealistic cue, then by the same logic that you used to debunk the 2DOF motion seat, you would therefore have to debunk your design as well.

Stranglely, the point that you decided to use to invalidate the 2DOF motion seat is one of the most debatable and least conclusive because there is strong evidence that not moving the wheel and screen leads to improved neuromuscular training and muscle memory, most notably with regard to the neck muscles.

Here is what Mr. Denne actually said regarding a fixed wheel and pedals along with a moving seat:

Above is a direct quote from Denne that details many of the good reasons why the 2DOF motion seat is so successful, yet you try to use his paper in you marketing materials (which you so graciously posted a link to) to discredit the concept?

I can appreciate your marketing efforts, and while this marketing hype may work on the average consumer, I don't think that your going to be able to peddle this inaccurate comparision here. The average X-Simmer is far to wise to fall for it.

Now that you have shown how easy it is to draw an innacurate conclusion based on a research paper, and I have shown how easy it is to invalidate said conclusion, maybe we could leave the hype aside and get back to Mr. Denne's concept of placing a motion seat atop a 6DOF platform. This is one of the few motion concepts that I have not had the opportunity to test yet and I think it's has exciting potential. However, I am currently testing another design concept that adds many of the benefits of a 6DOF platform without adding the extreme cost. As we both know, all simulator design concepts start with an understanding of your target customer base and go from there. Cost is an issue given my target market, but I would be willing to examine the motion seat atop a 6DOF platform concept with you.

Do you have an X-Sim based simulator up and running that we can use for the purpose of this conversation and exchange of notes, or will this conversation be limited strictly to the frame?


Friendly Advice: If you would like to use these forums as a means to market your product and ideas, I would suggest doing so so by way of contribution. A good example of how to do this can be seen by reviewing posts from CXC Simulations. Chris makes tangible contributions to the community by way of motion profiles, software bug reports etc.. These things are valued by the community and he is earning their respect by providing them and interacting with them in the process. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that non-contributing corporate entities seeking only to promote their products by starting conversations about them are not viewed highly by this community.

Bernard,

Excellent and through points, I would agree with most of your interpretation of the article on the high level and don't want to quibble on the details too much but will try and clarify my position. That specific paper does deal with a 6DOF sim, there is another article referenced in our education section about the comparison between a 6DOF sim and 3DOF rotational sims from the AIAA stating that the resulting simulation experiences (for professional pilots) were of comparable quality, so I'll apologize for making that leap without the proper citation.

I was addressing the statement that a 3DOF rotational full motion chassis is MORE immersive than a seat mover and will stand by this assertion, and that the cited research supports this position.

I think its great that your research and training encompass neuromuscular training and response time training, this is specifically what the former Human Performance Manager for McLaren uses our simulator for and has even switched from using Chris' CXC to provide an elevated training program; again available on our website as a testimonial (no link this time ).

I will agree as originally stated that seat movers can provide an immersive experience for small motion cues without moving the controls. In fact if you have your helmet attached to a training harness, too much motion could even cause severe injury.

As you state, cost is king and moving just the seat can be cheaper than moving the entire occupant compartment, especially using the techniques and software available from X-Sim.

I appreciate your suggestion that giving back to the X-Sim community would be the most meaningful contribution, as integrating the software as an option into our simulation architecture is in progress, it is however not an urgent task. I hope to provide a more tangible contribution instead of just education and discussion in the future, and apologize if my research, experience, and the testimonials of professional drivers and simracers came off as inaccurate hype.

This discussion and more research on these subjects can only benefit the simracing (and flight sim) communities and X-Sim as the pinnacle of this genre seems like a likely place for it to take place. However, I won't apologize for being able to make a living by building motion simulators.

Michael