sim: static vs motion for driver training
 

For driver training, is a "home" motion sim a huge improvement over a good static setup? Big jump in cost to get motion so is this a case of getting most of the training value of a sim from the static setup or is there a lot of extra value in motion? Also a lot of competing motion technologies - seat motion, full cockpit motion, d-box, etc. Any of these better than the others?

In my experience, it's up to the user. TEST THEM BEFORE BUYING.

I like D-Box, but don't feel it's necessary. I've tried SimCraft and many others over the last decade, up to and including Cruden's "home" Hexapod. Not enamored. Latency, mechanical slop, overblown motion, more a distraction than a help. But that's just me.

In my opinion, a well done static sim is more than adequate.

I've been in the flight simulation business for 25+ years. Motion cueing systems are not as important as a good visual display and highly accurate hand and feet control systems. As Pro Coach referred to, latency between visual and motion system cues actually cause negative training, and in some cases in flight simulators cause sim sickness. Google flight simulator sickness and you can find research papers written by the US Navy and NASA.

I've always struggled with sims, and generally couldn't even drive a partial lap without crashing.

I had a chance to try a 3-DOF SIM over the summer, using Oculus Rift instead of monitors. The 3-DOF was done by actuators that could push up on the back of the seat, plus one that could shift rear of the seat side to side (to simulate loss of traction).

I drive a Miata, and a good time for me at the Glen is 2:15 or so. The Sim was using some sort of Porsche cup car, and in the 30 minute session I got down to 1:50, and only had one big crash and a couple of small offs. The SIM owner's best time was a 1:48, and I think with a bit more time I could have easily gotten to that time.

Compare that to my previous sim experience where I couldn't get a Miata halfway around the track w/o crashing. I wish I knew how much of it was the Rift vs. the 3-DOF.

IMO, a VR headset makes a huge difference in providing a more real-world experience and transfer of that experience from the living room to the track. Panning your vision to the left and right with a VR headset is more like being in the actual car, looking at a flat screen in front of you is not. Regarding motion systems, lets assume a 3-DOF or even 6-DOF motion system is perfectly tuned to have minimal latency to the visual display. In the best of conditions it can only provide onset cues and then those cues must be washed out because the actuators run out of travel to provide any sustained G-forces. So you aren't really getting a real-world experience through the seat of your pants, and that is the next most important source of input from the car after your eyeballs. I'm not saying there is no value to having a well-tuned motion system, I'm just saying it's not that important relative to visual display accuracy and hands/feet control accuracy. Even the FAA has realized that motion systems in $25M flight simulators isn't as big a deal as once thought 25 years ago, but they are still required for the highest fidelity certification (Level D, Part 60). In flight simulators the motion system is most valuable for vibrations (touchdown on runway, which wheel is first, etc.), malfunctions (blown tires, etc.) and rough air simulation (windshear, turbulence). The only simulator I'm aware of that can provide sustained G-force cueing is one in a multi-story tower at NASA Ames research center. I assume that one is still in operation. In that NASA simulator, the 6-DOF motion system and cockpit moves up and down and side to side inside a large building to help enhance sustained G-force simulation.

I've only driven one setup that had motion. I don't know the brand, but I know it wasn't cheap. Like just about everyone I know who drove it, I found the motion annoying, and not particularly helpful.

I made two changes to my rig that have really transformed the sim experience for me. I upgraded my brake pedal to the Perfect Pedal, and I bought a VR headset (Samsung Odyssey HMD). It took me from struggling to stay on track, to running at real-life race pace. I find that the VR setup REALLY helps me sense rotation and as a result I can keep ahead of the car. I wish VR had better resolution (The Samsung has the same resolution as Vive Pro at a much better price), but the value of immersion is considerable. At first I was fatigued quickly when using the headset, but I acclimated fairly quickly. Recently a group of my racing buddies and I had a two-hour non-stop practice session. I had no issues staying in the headset for that long.

VR will get you 90% of the way there and is better than any monitor setup.

Thanks for the input. I'm surprised there isn't much support for motion, not just the lower end units. Most of the things I have read favor triple screens. VR looks like something to add on and experiment with. Motion sickness and poor resolution seem to be the problems with the current generation.

Sounds like I should get the best static setup the budget will support.

The resolution of present VR units really isn't quite there yet -- it's really not possible to dispute that you get a significantly better view with details using monitors still. Latency between head motion and image moving to follow that was an issue until recently but I think the present crop of VR units is close enough that latency as a source of sickness is much less of a concern now. When I first got an Oculus Rift I had terrible trouble with motion sickness and no amount of "stick at it you'll get used to it" helped. What did make the real difference was locking the view in the sim to the horizon. Adam Brouillard has a good piece on why this matters and how to fix it on his web site if you are interested. Even so I find one thing in particular still gives me huge trouble -- pulling to a stop will make my stomach flip even with a lot of VR hours under my belt. I've solved this by just closing my eyes for the moments between low speed and no speed when coming to rest...turns out that was the last key for me to switching to VR for iRacing once and for all. Given the space needed and the expense of setting up triples it might be worth jumping to that directly if you like the VR experience (maybe see if a friend locally has a setup you can try??).

Agreed, VR resolution still isn't sharp, but will be in time. For me, I'd rather deal with the lower resolution of VR to gain the more immersive and real-world experience of looking in different directions just as I do with my head and eyes on track in the car. The first time I tried VR, my heart rate jumped up about 20 beats a minute due to the tricks it played on my brain, but after a couple of 15 minute sessions it never really was an issue for me. I found the Oculus better for me simply because it was more comfortable and light on my head compared to the others that were on the market about 12 months ago when I bought my sim racing setup. Some guys at work are doing some cool stuff with blended reality, haptic gloves combined with VR headsets.

For me, the most important part of my rig is a direct drive wheel. In sim, you're relying on all your feedback from the wheel so that level of detail and sensitivity is a must for immersion.

I've mentioned this before but I'd not be interested in sims without VR. The VR makes is what makes it for me. It forces me to pay attention since my entire vision is taken up by the view out of the car. The depth you get with is worth the resolution trade off. I went from a rift to an Odyssey+ and it's been a nice upgrade for me.

Each his own though. I have a NLRV3 seat mover but it's more of a nice to have than a must. I can run the same times with or without it. Seat movers will also have less latency and faster response time than chassis movers but there are pro's and con's to both.

Seat shakers (many good ones are versions of subwoofers) are very effective for providing some realistic vibration cues and are relatively low cost and compact.