Re: [Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Sub Simulator]

[Danny Campbell <danny.campbell@usa.net>]

Paul,

I'll answer your last question first... I live in Leonardtown, Maryland and
work at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, MD where I am a
mechanical engineer for the Manned Flight Simulator facility.  Like you, I cut
my eye teeth on FORTRAN writing aerodynamic and engine simulation code.  That
experience expanded to include visual modeling and aural cuing.  About four
years ago I'd had enough of 1's and 0's and came back to my true love -
mechanical design.

I was trying to follow along with your description of a sub simulator but
became somewhat lost when my own experience with simulators said "whoa! What
the heck?"

Motion:  One of the most important rules regarding simulator motion is that
"no motion is better than bad motion."  But for something like this you BETTER
have motion!  The human body can be fooled into thinking it is moving by
giving small "G onsets" or short accelerations in a given direction and
coupling that feel with a high fidelity visual system.  There are many
companies out there who build small, electrically actuated, six degree of
freedom motion bases.  That's what I would recommend for motion but it
wouldn't allow 360 degree rotation - probably no more than 45 degrees or so. 
But believe me, this can be very disconcerting to be tilted even that much!

Visuals:  In the simulator you're travelling in three dimensional space and
can move in any direction and orientation.  A video track will not work as it
only shows one course.  Again, there are many visual systems out there that
can do the job of spitting out a 360 degree image in any orientation at any
position within a computer database of its world.  Modern photo cell texturing
can be very lifelike and is the only way to go.  You would want to couple this
with a good partial dome that would actually sit on top of the motion system
and move along with it, the cockpit being inside.

Aural Cuing:  Forget about a real prop in a bucket of water.  It would
eventually be a serious maintenance issue, I doubt it would give you the same
sound as you would get in a real environment, and again there are vendors out
there such as ASTi who have a super off the shelf product.  Besides, aural
cuing is probably the least important of your sensory inputs and in simulators
the pilots often get tired of the background engine noise and request it be
turned off.  A digital system such as ASTi would give you the ability for
special effect sounds like bubbles, the hull creaking, warning klaxons,
weapons fire...

Gauges: They're a no-brainer.  Again, plenty of companies out there making
simulator gauges.  They can be rather pricey but I've got a good feel for who
makes the best product.

Cockpit:  I'm calling it a cockpit out of habit but I'm talking about the
shell.  It should probably be a fiberglass shell which houses accouterments of
a typical sub which you would expect to find in the game's "mission."

The "Mission": A lot of hydrodynamic modelling, coding, game development,
scenario development, visual database development...  You could spend a lot of
time and money on this one topic.  Probably more than the sum of everything
else!

Geez, that's about enough for now!  Hope it gives you some food for thought. 
If you do most of the work yourself (or ourselves) then I'd guess you could
crank one out for a quarter million.  Hey, we spend a LOT more building
simulators for the Navy & Marines.

Danny Campbell


"Paul Suds" <paul_suds@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Danny, thanks for the feedback. I've got a little experience with 
programming Nuke plant simulators (FORTRAN), and Programmable Logic 
Controllers (PLC)and associated hardware (air,hydraulics, indexing tables, 
etc). What I don't have is visual object simulator experience. I have a lot 
of experience with LCD projectors, and I know that you can use mirrors for 
projecting in tight spaces, but I have to plead ignorance in this area. I 
envision an outer shell made of fiber glass and plastics, that is really eye 
appealing. It would form the structure for the inner pilot frame. The frame 
would pivot from bearings attached to the outer structure (sides) which 
doesn't move. This would allow the pilot pod to rotate on the longest radial 
axis (front to back). The actual pod would be attached via bearing to the 
front and back of the frame via bearings. In this way, 360 degree rotation 
could occur in both planes. I haven't worked with rotary electrical 
connectors, so I would have to do some digging. To enhance the experience, 
the frame could be connected to another frame, which would be attached to an 
X and Y indexing table. This would give the sense of accelerating and 
decelerating. this is starting to sound bigger and more complex all the 
time. The customer would have to be well seatbelted in because you would be 
able to "fly" upside down. Coordinating all this with visuals is where I am 
having a problem. I can get good videos (make them myself) of a nice reef, 
but synchronizing the image to the position of the sub would involve a 
learning curve on my part. Controls could be a joy stick and some buttons 
lights, etc on the control panel. Depth could be displayed as well as other 
parameters.
The real kicker is the 360 degree capability. With this feature, everyone 
would want a ride. Of course there would be many safety features. I would 
even want to have a real motor and prop in an inert liquid to simulate the 
sound of a prop in water. Finally, I could see a fine mist nozzle that would 
leak more water the deeper you get. This would leak out of the pod 
regardless of the pod position. Well maybe not.
Any way, what do you guys think? Am I totally off my rocker? If so, thank 
you. By the way Danny where do you live?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1