> It's simulating G-forces.

Obviously.

My point is that the Frex moves in a way such that the eye position of
the driver is changing reasonably close to the way it does in real life
in response to G forces, but as a result, those same movements apply
real G forces to the body of the driver that are completely inaccurate.
In fact, the real G forces that the driver feels while the chair is
moving are reversed from what happens in real life.

Is it cheaper than a motion platform? Much! Is it better than no
motion? Surely. Does it accurately present real world motion cues to
the driver? No. Is it suitable for race driver training? I don't
think so.

Pat Dotson


Trev B wrote:
> wrote:
> > I've been reading about the Frex motion system. It looks impressive in
> > the video! Lots of movement.
> >
> > Has anyone discussed the inaccurate motion cues that Frex system
> > provides? The Frex system is generating motion cues opposite from what
> > occurs in real life!
> >
> > For instance, the inner-ear sensations that the driver experiences will
> > all be reversed from real life. Also, the pressure and tension changes
> > the driver feels between his body and the seat while the seat is in
> > motion are reversed from reality.
> >
> > The Frex approach seems to be to move the head of the driver around in
> > the way it would in a real car. From that perspective the system seems
> > OK, except that eye position movement of the driver is already modelled
> > in current simulations. I guess you could just turn off the simulated
> > head movement in the simulation while using the Frex system.
> >
> > Still, I'd hate to train and practice in that device, then jump in a
> > real car expecting to go fast!
> >
> > Pat Dotson
> >
> It's simulating G-forces. It's cheaper than a full-motion platform.
> People say it feels right.