Educational examples showing how the classification process works
These pages demonstrate SFR evaluations using hypothetical systems. No real products, manufacturers, or organizations are referenced. The purpose is to show the logic of classification — how evidence is reviewed, how criteria are applied, and how classification decisions are reached.
These are educational reference materials, not a registry of certified systems. No classification shown here constitutes endorsement, certification, or a finding about any real simulation product. All systems described are hypothetical constructs created for demonstration purposes only.
An SFR evaluation is a structured review of evidence about how a simulation system produces and delivers motion. It is not a subjective impression of quality or immersion. It is a systematic examination of whether a system meets specific, defined structural criteria — and a documented record of the evidence and reasoning behind that determination.
Every evaluation produces the same type of output: a classification result (In-the-Loop, Surface-Level, or Out-of-the-Loop), a per-criterion finding for each of the three criteria, a description of the evidence reviewed and its evidence tier, and any limitations or open questions the evidence could not resolve.
The classification result is determined by the evidence, not by the evaluator's opinion. If the evidence supports a criterion, the criterion passes. If the evidence contradicts a criterion or is insufficient to assess it, the criterion fails or returns insufficient data. The classification follows from the criterion results automatically.
Not certification. An SFR evaluation produces a classification result. It does not grant a certificate, license, or mark of approval. Classification is a description of structural properties, not a quality endorsement.
Not endorsement. Classifying a system as In-the-Loop does not mean SFR endorses the system, its manufacturer, or its claims. It means the system met the structural criteria at the time of evaluation against the evidence provided.
Not permanent. A classification applies to a specific system configuration at a specific point in time. If the system is modified — hardware, software architecture, or motion control logic — the classification must be re-evaluated. Classification of one version does not extend to future versions.
Every SFR evaluation follows the same four stages, regardless of the system being evaluated. The reference evaluations on this page walk through each stage step by step.
Five required inputs are reviewed: motion telemetry, physics architecture documentation, actuator specification, synchronization data, and control telemetry. Optional inputs (eye tracking, biometric data, reaction timing) may supplement but cannot substitute for required inputs. Each input is assigned an evidence tier (Tier 1 = measured telemetry, highest; Tier 4 = manufacturer claims, lowest).
Three criteria are assessed in sequence. Criterion A (Physics-Driven Motion): does the actuator command originate from the physics model output at time of generation? Criterion B (Structural Independence): do axes operate independently with center-of-mass reference? Criterion C (Human Response Relevance): do motion characteristics match expected physiological parameters for the depicted vehicle events?
The classification follows from the criterion results. If all three criteria pass, the system is classified In-the-Loop. If Criterion A or B fails, the system is Surface-Level. If no physics-derived motion reaches the participant, the system is Out-of-the-Loop. There is no subjective override of the criterion results.
A standardized evaluation record is produced: classification result, per-criterion findings, evidence summary with tier assignments, any limitations or caveats, and the date and version under which the evaluation was conducted. The record is the deliverable — not a mark, certificate, or ranking.
The two reference evaluations below each walk through the complete evaluation process for a hypothetical system. Reference Evaluation A demonstrates a system that meets all three criteria. Reference Evaluation B demonstrates a system that fails Criteria A and B. Reading both in sequence shows why the same process produces different results when the underlying architecture is different.
A six-axis system where all motion output is driven directly from the real-time vehicle dynamics engine. Independent axis control, center-of-mass reference enforced in software architecture.
A hexapod motion platform using a motion cueing algorithm. Motion is derived from physics outputs but transformed by a washout filter before reaching the actuators. Axes are mechanically coupled.
These two tools offer different paths into the classification process — one explanatory, one interactive.
A plain-language walkthrough of the four questions that determine classification, with visual examples of each tier. No methodology jargon. Accessible to any reader.
Read the explanation →An interactive educational questionnaire. Answer five plain-language questions about your system and see which classification tier it likely falls into. Not an official evaluation.
Start the assessment →