Flight Simulators

[Neil1993]

I had an interesting conversation the other day.

I'm currently working at a company that builds flight simulators. Not little dinky ones like Microsoft Flight Simulator with a joystick either. These are Full Flight Simulators, built and programmed to such quality that an hour flying one of these counts as an hour of actual flight time in a real aircraft (I've gotten at least 20 hours in the last few weeks ). I put a picture of one at the end of this post.

However, someone I know recently claimed that these devices would soon be obsolete. He quoted the oculus rift, small hydraulic platforms and recent advances in simulated tactile technology as reasons why full-flight simulators would soon be replaced.

I would like to hear your opinions.

Here's a full-flight (this wasn't built by the company I work for):

[Nibb31]

As far as professional training simulators go, I don't think an Oculus Rift provides the same experience as a real cockpit, with real seats, real instruments, real switches, and real person sitting in the seat next to you.

[Neil1993]

As far as professional training simulators go, I don't think an Oculus Rift provides the same experience as a real cockpit, with real seats, real instruments, real switches, and real person sitting in the seat next to you.

I agree. Also, you can't perform the cockpit fire drills where you have to put on the oxygen mask if you're wearing an oculus rift.

[K^2]

Oculus definitely isn't there yet, but I wouldn't dismiss possibility of VR tech advancing sufficiently in the near-ish future.

[Athlonic]

Hi,

First of all, wow just wow !

That thing on the picture ! Where can I order one ? Should fit perfectly in my living room ^^

On a more serious note, here is my thought about Oculus like device regarding simulations purpose.

I personally own the Oculus rift DK2 and I had the chance to try some of these Thales simulator devices as well (sorry can't tell how and which ones I tried on the internet, otherwise this entire forum might suddenly disappear without notice )

All I can say is, if the Oculus Rift is a nice piece of technology, it will still take a while until we can use this as a serious training device.

Simulators using hard cockpits are still much more efficient to assimilate aircraft's systems and emergency/safety procedures and this is what we want "professionally" speaking.

In my humble opinion, we should try to use both of these technology (hard cockpit matching the virtual one) because in term of immersion nothing beat the Oculus Rift for now.

But there is still a long way until we have the correct hardware (screen resolution, motion sickness avoidance, ...) to make the Rift safe and ready for use in serious purpose like crew training and such.

In the mean time, I am quite confident the Oculus (consumer version) will be a nice entertainment device, my kids already enjoy the DK2 a lot (me too to be honest ^^ )

[LordFerret]

From what I see, I have no worries of Oculus Rift replacing anything 'serious' anytime soon. It's gaming headgear and nothing more. Any advancements in hydraulics and tactile components will be integrated into existing systems (if they aren't already). The HUDs (headgear/eye-wear) already in use by the military (any military) are far more advanced than the Oculus Rift. Considering the worthiness of cockpit simulators, I think they'll be around for a long, long time.

[Deutherius]

How much would one of those puppies cost me? Does your company only build airplane cockpit simulators, or can one order a spacecraft cockpit simulator (Soyuz, Orion, Space Shuttle...)?

Can you build me a cockpit to simulate a mech from the Battletech universe?

Do you accept payment in the form of souls of the innocent?

On topic: No, Oculus Rift and the like will never reach this far. Unless we are talking about full on virtual reality ala The Matrix - but who knows which one would be cheaper to buy/borrow.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Deutherius
missed a word

[pincushionman]

I can see Oculus Rift-type devices being used…to replace the display component in cetain integrated simulator systems. But it's only part of the system.

[Neil1993]

How much would one of those puppies cost me? Does your company only build airplane cockpit simulators, or can one order a spacecraft cockpit simulator (Soyuz, Orion, Space Shuttle...)?

They can cost between 10 and 20 million dollars each, depending on the aircraft and various other options. I know the company I work for has also built the simulator to train astronauts in the use of the Canada arm.

Can you build me a cockpit to simulate a mech from the Battletech universe?

No

Do you accept payment in the form of souls of the innocent?

Sometimes

seriously, though. The main problem with using anything other than what's being used right now for aircraft training is the regulations. You need to get that stuff approved by the authorities ...and we all know how long that can take.

[EzinX]

Yeah. The Rift and comparable devices do have a couple advantages :

1. True stereoscopic display with no ghosting (bleed from left to right, which you get with every other method for 3d)

2. Perfect head tracking. This is important because one of the reasons those flight simulators require many computers to drive them is that you have to render every perspective from every window on the aircraft. If you know what the user is actually looking at, you only have to update what the user can actually see.

We could develop a form of virtual desktop that would work the same way. Instead of hiding windows behind other windows the way we do it now, you would have everything visible, all the time, in a 360 degree virtual space around the user. In the event that a user has so many tabs and windows open that there isn't enough room to show them all, you would make the less important tabs smaller. You only update the windows inside the field of view of the VR headset user.

But, if you're wearing a headset, how do you see your hands and the switches?

The way to make this work is a headset that projects the image right onto your retina, overlaid on the real world. As you move your head around, there would be black construction paper or something in the cockpit windows, and the headset would display the stereoscopic image of what is visible outside the cockpit beamed right onto your retina. You would track the user's head position with fixed cameras inside the cockpit aimed at the trainees, that would be looking at marker LEDs on the outside of the headset.

The actual Rift could be used for the monitoring stations - the instructors who watch the pilots would wear rifts which would display the feed from cameras inside the cockpit (so you can see what the trainee hands are doing) and the stereoscopic view of the outside world.

[DaMichel]

This is very impressive, and as a passenger i would prefer that pilots train under the most realistic conditions

The Occulus Rift has a pretty bad display last time i heard about it. I mean less than full HD. You probably would not be able to read the instruments properly even it could do full HD. I bet those simulator screens have 10s of thousands of pixels and the instruments are real of course.

Funny thing is that you could not see the actions of the copilot. Unless some sort of full body motion capture would be done, which sounds silly if you can just build the real cockpit.

[Deutherius]

No

Aw man

...

Very interesting. I haven't even considered that the point of view might be changing, and therefore the displayed scenery should too (how often would the trainee actually move from the pilot's seat enough for this to be noticeable?). Also, would the tech be able to deal with latency due to all the necessary processing? (I imagine seeing your hands with considerable lag would be unusable, but the lag being applied only to the images behind the "windows" sounds more bearable)

[Beowolf]

How about an Oculus Rift plus an attachment for my future household robot so it can pick me up and spin me around?

Seriously, I think it'll play out roughly like PCs and mainframes did. Independent coexistence for a decade or so, as both types of sim get better, but the cheaper ones can improve at a much faster rate. Then one day, one of the big players in your industry will decide the incremental benefit of the "pro" sims isn't worth it anymore, buys out the company making the most advanced "amateur" version, and foots the huge cost of having it certificated. That'll open the floodgates, and for the next decade, half the pundits will think your industry's doomed. But it'll survive, in a heavily-altered form.

Alas, a few years later, the very concept gets rendered obsolete by someone inventing teleportation or sims based on direct brain interface, or something. Older hobbyists buy your remaining top-end inventory for pennies on the dollar, to install in their garages. They quickly learn they can't afford to properly maintain them, so instead of flying write lovingly-crafted blog posts about their gear.

[Neil1993]

Seriously, I think it'll play out roughly like PCs and mainframes did. Independent coexistence for a decade or so, as both types of sim get better, but the cheaper ones can improve at a much faster rate. Then one day, one of the big players in your industry will decide the incremental benefit of the "pro" sims isn't worth it anymore, buys out the company making the most advanced "amateur" version, and foots the huge cost of having it certificated. That'll open the floodgates, and for the next decade, half the pundits will think your industry's doomed. But it'll survive, in a heavily-altered form.

The problem about certification isn't the cost, it's getting the authorities to agree to it. Certification is mainly what my job deals with, and I can say that the amount that would have to change to allow oculus rift-like devices to be used for one-to-one training is absolutely immense. So much of the current regulations are geared towards simulators like the one shown above and these regulations can just take so long to change. If changing a tolerance from 1% to 2% is a big ordeal.

Alas, a few years later, the very concept gets rendered obsolete by someone inventing teleportation or sims based on direct brain interface, or something. Older hobbyists buy your remaining top-end inventory for pennies on the dollar, to install in their garages. They quickly learn they can't afford to properly maintain them, so instead of flying write lovingly-crafted blog posts about their gear.

That must be an awfully big garage

[cpast]

I really can't see headset-based things replacing full-cockpit sims. As I understand it, most of the *point* of those is that everything is laid out precisely like a real cockpit; I can't imagine real-cockpit-with-VR-headset is cheaper than real-cockpit-with-screens-on-windows.

[Columbia]

Honestly, I believe that Flight Simulators are a much better alternative. At least you can move around more and literally see what's around you and flick actual switches and pivot actual yokes. And you see it with the naked eye instead of the whole thing being virtual.

[Kerbart]

It would be easy to dismiss Oculus rift based on existing technology. But then again, look at how "Doom" was in 1995 on DX2 and where we are now with Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. I would not be surprised that there will be a time, and probably sooner than we'd think, that virtual reality goggles can provide the visual effect of sitting in a real cockpitâ€â€if not life-like, than at least to a level that is acceptable enough for immersion.

The question then becomes if what those goggles are lacking compared to a "hydraulic cockpit" (vibrations, acceleration, pushed to the left or right when turning without proper banking, etc) can be compensated by what the goggles can offer that the simulated cockpit cannot. I'm not a pilot so I have no clue what would be relevant, but let's for argument sake say "Santa Claus sticking to your windshield" (which maybe a hydraulic simulator can show pretty convincingly as well, but let's assume it cannot), and how relevant would that be for the simulation? I can see that hydraulic simulators can offer things like real smoke (smelling like burnt kerosene) filling the cockpit, etc, but I can also see how many of those things can be done with really good VR goggles (not the oculus rift at this point, clearly). On the flipside, one set of goggles can simulate *any* cockpit, from a customer point of view that is very attractive.

Would it be a threat for the company you work at? At this point I think the bigger threat is the question if we have pilots in the future in the first place, and not robots steering the aircraft.

In similar fashion the bigger threat those VR goggles might offer is not that it could replace the hydraulic cockpit, but that it negates the need for flying for many. Business travel makes up a large portion of the airline industry, and I can have a quality meeting with my colleagues without spending $2,000 for flying & hotels and spending two uncomfortable days in airports and aircrafts then the airlines would have to cut down a good portion of their business, shrinking the market for simulating cockpits as well.

[WestAir]

It'll take 15 years for the FAA to approve it for use and another 10 for companies to buy it.

Edit: Companies have already invested in full flight sims. They're going to get their monies worth before going to the next best thing.

A virtual cockpit lacks the tangible feeling of said flight deck. It took me a while to learn how to move the flap levers, gear and speed brakes. A lot of cockpits have knobs textured slightly differently so you know what you're touching before you move it.

VRs lack a lot of the experience. It's why sims like PMDGs 737 won't count towards a type rating despite their obvious quality.

Edited April 9, 2015 by WestAir

[Neil1993]

It'll take 15 years for the FAA to approve it for use and another 10 for companies to buy it.

15 years might be a bit optimistic

- - - Updated - - -

It would be easy to dismiss Oculus rift based on existing technology. But then again, look at how "Doom" was in 1995 on DX2 and where we are now with Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. I would not be surprised that there will be a time, and probably sooner than we'd think, that virtual reality goggles can provide the visual effect of sitting in a real cockpitâ€â€if not life-like, than at least to a level that is acceptable enough for immersion.

The question then becomes if what those goggles are lacking compared to a "hydraulic cockpit" (vibrations, acceleration, pushed to the left or right when turning without proper banking, etc) can be compensated by what the goggles can offer that the simulated cockpit cannot. I'm not a pilot so I have no clue what would be relevant, but let's for argument sake say "Santa Claus sticking to your windshield" (which maybe a hydraulic simulator can show pretty convincingly as well, but let's assume it cannot), and how relevant would that be for the simulation? I can see that hydraulic simulators can offer things like real smoke (smelling like burnt kerosene) filling the cockpit, etc, but I can also see how many of those things can be done with really good VR goggles (not the oculus rift at this point, clearly). On the flipside, one set of goggles can simulate *any* cockpit, from a customer point of view that is very attractive.

It would be possible to use a hydraulic chair (see below) to simulate the motion. The problem with this, however, isn't so much the computing power required to simulate the flight accurately (which is substantial) but the fact that you have to pay the aircraft manufacturer to use their flight model, almost like you're paying royalties for showing a movie. This can cost between 3 to 4 million dollars per simulator!

As well, the point of having a full cockpit is because a lot of simulator training is based on knowing how to operate the 1000 or so switches and buttons in crisis situations. I don't see how you can really do this wearing an oculus rift (yet), which can't give you the feel for flicking the switches.

Would it be a threat for the company you work at? At this point I think the bigger threat is the question if we have pilots in the future in the first place, and not robots steering the aircraft

Agreed. Luckily, this is only a temporary internship. Also, see below:

In similar fashion the bigger threat those VR goggles might offer is not that it could replace the hydraulic cockpit, but that it negates the need for flying for many. Business travel makes up a large portion of the airline industry, and I can have a quality meeting with my colleagues without spending $2,000 for flying & hotels and spending two uncomfortable days in airports and aircrafts then the airlines would have to cut down a good portion of their business, shrinking the market for simulating cockpits as well.

Perhaps, but that's a discussion for another day.

[WestAir]

The comment about "if we'll need pilots in the future anyway" is a scary one.

Will we need human doctors in the future? Can we replace soldiers with more replaceable robots? What about teachers, firemen, business leaders... will we reach a point where a computer would be a more perfect world leader / president than man? At what point does the encroachment of automation begin to erode our place at the top of the food chain?

Off topic, but Kebart did bring up a valuable point.

[Neil1993]

The comment about "if we'll need pilots in the future anyway" is a scary one.

Will we need human doctors in the future? Can we replace soldiers with more replaceable robots? What about teachers, firemen, business leaders... will we reach a point where a computer would be a more perfect world leader / president than man? At what point does the encroachment of automation begin to erode our place at the top of the food chain?

This is a very interesting discussion and I don't know if it's right for this particular thread ...but what the heck! Let's do it anyways!

Computers already do a whole lot of things better than humans, a lot of which is the boring sorting-through-tons-of-data type tasks. But programs are becoming good enough to replace other jobs (see the self-driving car or IBM's Watson). This can be very good, since robots can make things safer and more efficient, but at the same times, what is the point of humans?

[Guest]

The comment about "if we'll need pilots in the future anyway" is a scary one.

Will we need human doctors in the future? Can we replace soldiers with more replaceable robots? What about teachers, firemen, business leaders... will we reach a point where a computer would be a more perfect world leader / president than man? At what point does the encroachment of automation begin to erode our place at the top of the food chain?

Off topic, but Kebart did bring up a valuable point.

I'd gladly see pilots replaced with AI. List of perfectly healthy aircraft crashed due human error, bad judgment and bravado is a lot longer, that list of damaged aircraft saved by human creativity and non-standard thinking. And AI don't need training - it's proficient out of the box.

[henryrasia]

The thing is that any AI would have to be programmed by a human, so we're back at stage zero.

Unless you want a self-programming AI. Do you want Skynet? Because that's how you get skynet.

[mrfox]

I'd gladly see pilots replaced with AI. List of perfectly healthy aircraft crashed due human error, bad judgment and bravado is a lot longer, that list of damaged aircraft saved by human creativity and non-standard thinking. And AI don't need training - it's proficient out of the box.

Only because the list of crashes that would've been caused by computer errors, but averted by human intervention, is not public knowledge - they exist only as internal safety memos - for corporate image reasons. For example - the amount of errors that comes up everytime an airline navigation database gets updated (every 28 days) is often downright scary. Our most recent database update had an error that "crashes"(ie fails) both flight management computers entirely every time a particular approach at a certain airport was loaded - which means losing most navigation and automation functions instantly. Other times an error is more insidous - ie a wrong altitude - but the results can be just as deadly without a human preforming a "sanity" check in realtime.

[Tommygun]

An Oculus Rift type of device could have a place in training.

If you are running a flight school or something similar with 200 plus students, you can't put one or two students in a big simulator for 20 some hours a week.

You also can't buy too many of the big simulators at 10 to 20 million ether, but you can supplement their training with an Oculus Rift like device.

A student can get the basics down before going into the full simulator.