How different organizations use the SFR framework.
The SFR framework is designed to be useful across a range of organizations that work with simulation systems. This document describes how each organization type engages with the framework, which documents are most relevant, and what outcomes the framework supports for each context.
SFR provides a classification framework that a manufacturer can reference in product documentation and architecture specifications. It allows a manufacturer to articulate the structural distinction between their architecture and surface-level alternatives — in terms that a procurement team, training institution, or researcher can verify independently. SFR does not endorse or certify products. It defines what structural conditions must be present for a system to merit a given classification.
Architecture documentation aligned with SFR criteria. Classification claims that can be independently verified. Differentiation from surface-level systems using a shared definitional standard rather than proprietary claims.
Simulation research requires a shared definition of fidelity. Without it, results from studies using different simulator types cannot be meaningfully compared. SFR provides canonical definitions and a classification system that allows researchers to describe their study subjects — the simulation systems used — with precision that other researchers can interpret and replicate. Universities can also use SFR to evaluate simulation equipment for teaching programs where transfer of training is a concern.
Consistent terminology in publications. Classifiable study subjects. Comparable results across studies using the same classification language. A citable framework for defining what "fidelity" means in a specific study context.
Driver development programs invest in simulation on the assumption that simulator training transfers to on-track performance. Whether this transfer occurs depends on whether the simulator is delivering physics-accurate motion cues that match real vehicle dynamics. SFR provides a framework for evaluating whether a simulator is structurally capable of producing training-relevant cues, and for understanding the consequences when it is not.
Procurement decisions informed by classification evidence rather than marketing claims. Training protocols aligned with actual simulator capability. Understanding of where surface-level simulation is and is not appropriate for driver development.
Aviation simulation fidelity is a regulated concern with established qualification frameworks. SFR is not a substitute for existing aviation simulator qualification programs. It is a supplementary analysis framework that addresses physics-fidelity at the structural level — specifically, whether motion is derived from live physics state, whether timing relationships between sensory channels are coherent, and whether the resulting physical cues are sufficient to drive correct human response. These questions are relevant regardless of the existing qualification category of the device.
Supplemental physics-fidelity analysis that complements existing qualification categories. Understanding of structural distinctions between device types. Framework for evaluating devices that exist outside existing qualification categories.
Neurologically compromised populations experience sensory conflict from simulation differently than healthy populations. The mismatch between expected and delivered motion cues that a healthy participant adapts to may be disorienting or symptom-provoking for participants with vestibular disorders, post-concussion syndrome, neurodegenerative conditions, or age-related vestibular decline. SFR provides a classification framework that helps rehabilitation programs identify whether a simulator is appropriate for a given patient population before use, based on its structural properties rather than its appearance.
Pre-use screening framework for patient safety. Distinction between in-the-loop, surface-level, and out-of-the-loop systems as it applies to patient appropriateness. Understanding of sensory conflict mechanisms and their relevance to neurologically sensitive populations.
Military simulation procurement involves long-term investment decisions where mistraining risk carries operational consequences. SFR provides an architecture-neutral classification framework that can be applied during procurement review to evaluate whether a simulation system is structurally capable of delivering the physics-accurate training that operational tasks require. The framework's evidence hierarchy and evaluation methodology support structured due diligence against vendor claims without requiring proprietary access to system architecture.
Evidence-based procurement criteria for simulation systems. Capability assessment framework independent of vendor classification claims. Structured evaluation methodology applicable to RFP and acquisition review processes.
Simulation research lacks a shared fidelity classification vocabulary. Studies that describe simulation subjects only by manufacturer and model provide no basis for cross-study comparison when the structural characteristics of the systems vary. SFR provides a classification system based on structural properties that can be independently verified from architecture documentation and telemetry. When a study classifies its simulation subject using SFR criteria, another researcher can determine whether the two subjects are structurally comparable and whether results are transferable.
Consistent terminology in publications. Classifiable study subjects that other researchers can interpret. Citable framework for defining simulation fidelity as an independent variable. Comparable results across studies when the same classification criteria are used.
The Research Reference Framework provides detailed guidance for researchers, including suggested citation language and study-type specific guidance.
The SFR framework is architecture-neutral: it does not assume any particular system design and does not endorse any manufacturer. The same framework documents apply regardless of whether the system under consideration is a high-end facility simulator, a desktop device, or a rehabilitation platform. What changes across organization types is which documents are most immediately relevant and what outcomes the framework is being applied to support.
For the complete adoption reference, see the Adoption Hub.