Have you tried it? It tries to give you seat-of-the-pants feel. As
that's the aim, the movement is correct.

wrote:
>>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.
>
>