曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

0%
100%
% of time rot. mot. reported
No translation
Translation
Figure 25. Rotational motion perception for Task 2.
Task 3: Yaw Rotational Regulation
Objective Performance Data. Figure 26 depicts key
variables in a sample run for the Translation+Rotation and
Motionless conditions in Task 3. The peak yaw rate for
this run was 7.5°/sec (not shown). The peak yaw
accelerations for this task were similar to those of Task 1,
but the rms accelerations were slightly higher in Task 3
than in Task 1 (5.67°/sec2 versus 4.21°/sec2, respectively).
The amount of visual rotation was less in this
disturbance-rejection task than in the command task of
Task 1. Slightly more acceleration overshoots were
present when motion was removed.
Figure 27 depicts, for the four motion conditions, the
means and standard deviations of the number of times
pilots had an excursion outside ±1° about north per run.
When translational motion was added, the decrease in
the number of overshoots was statistically significant
(F(1,4) = 8.06, p = 0.047). The addition of rotational
motion did not yield a significant difference. The effects of
rotational and translational motion did not interact in this
measure.
Figure 28 illustrates the pedal rate for the four
configurations. Unlike the results for the previous two
tasks, the addition of translational motion did not significantly
reduce the rms pedal rate. However, the addition of
rotational motion actually increased pedal rate (F(1,4) =
18.74, p = 0.012). The rotational and translational motion
effects did not interact. So this is another case in which
the addition of rotational motion made matters worse;
however, as figure 28 shows, the percentage increase in
control rate was not dramatic.
The cause for the performance degradation with the
addition of rotational platform motion is unknown. The
opposite result occurred in Task 1. No attempts were made
to explain why with an analytical model; that is left for
future work. However, during the model development, a
modeler will face the difficulty of determining how a pilot
integrates both the rotational and translational cue.
Subjective Performance Data. Average pilot
compensation ratings are shown in figure 29. The
improvement in the ratings for the translational motion
conditions, relative to those in the rotational motion
conditions, was marginally significant (F(1,4) = 6.38,
p = 0.065). The addition of rotational motion resulted in
no statistical difference in compensation. The effects of
rotational and translational motion did not interact.
The same result occurred for rated fidelity, which is
presented in figure 30. The addition of translational
motion resulted in an improvement in fidelity ratings that
was marginally significant (F(1,4) = 6.15, p = 0.068).
The addition of rotational motion again made no difference.
The effects of rotational and translational motion
were statistically independent.
Figure 31 illustrates the percentage of the time that pilots
reported the presence of lateral translational motion. The
addition of translational motion significantly increased the
number of reports of lateral translational motion (F(1,4) =
12.1, p = 0.025). Interestingly, the addition of rotational
motion led to a marginally significant decrease in the
reports of lateral translational motion (F(1,4) = 5.4,
p = 0.08).
Figure 32 illustrates the percentage of the time that pilots
reported the presence of rotational motion. No significant
effects were found, with rotation being reported an average
of 73% of the time, independent of the motion
configuration.
27
-10
-5
0
5
10
Yaw rotation, deg
-5
0
5
Ayp, ft/sec2
-20
0
20
Yaw rot. accel., deg/sec2
0 50 100 150
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pedal, in
Time, sec
-10
-5
0
5
10
Yaw rotation, deg
-5
0
5
Ayp, ft/sec2
-20
0
20
Yaw rot. accel., deg/sec2
0 50 100 150
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pedal, in
Time, sec
Figure 26. Comparison of full motion and no motion for Task 3.
28
No rotation Rotation
0
10
20
30
40
50
No. of overshoots
No translation
Translation
Figure 27. Measured performance for Task 3.
No rotation Rotation
0
0.5
1
1.5
Rms pedal rate, in/sec
No translation
Translation
Figure 28. Control rate for Task 3.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(20)