Technical Specification

Detailed technical measurements and evaluation criteria for A Proposed Fidelity Rating

Proposed Fidelity Rating Scoring System

Core Components

  • Physics Accuracy (P): 0-25 points
  • Endpoint Cues (E): 0-25 points
  • Cognitive Load (C): 0-25 points
  • Overall Integration: 0-25 points

Proposed Fidelity Rating Formula

Proposed Rating = P + E + C + Integration

Maximum possible score: 100 points

Proposed Fidelity Rating Scale

0-25
Poor
26-50
Fair
51-75
Good
76-100
Excellent

Physics Accuracy (P) - 25 Points

Degrees of Freedom

  • 6-DOF: 10 points
  • 3-DOF: 5 points
  • 2-DOF: 3 points
  • 1-DOF: 2 points
  • Static: 0 points

Yaw First: The Critical Motion

Yaw rotation is the most critical motion for vehicle control. A simulator without yaw is missing the primary tool drivers use for directional control and spatial awareness.

Without yaw motion, drivers lose the fundamental sensory feedback needed for proper steering inputs and cornering technique.

Force Feedback

  • Direct Drive: 8 points
  • Belt Drive: 4 points
  • Gear Drive: 2 points
  • No Force FB: 0 points

Update Rate

Note: This measures the frequency of physics calculations and motion commands sent to actuators, not mechanical actuator speed.

  • 1000Hz+: 7 points
  • 500-999Hz: 5 points
  • 100-499Hz: 3 points
  • <100Hz: 1 point

Why Update Rate Matters

High update rates only matter when combined with accurate physics models—fast but incorrect motion is still worthless for training.

Related: Physics-First Principles

Proposed Fidelity Rating Distribution Analysis

Complete Proposed Fidelity Rating Formula & Explanation

Simplified Explanation

A Proposed Fidelity Rating helps determine how close a simulator feels to real-life experiences. It separates high-quality training simulators from low-quality, game-like setups that don't provide realistic feedback.

"If it doesn't move like real life, it doesn't train like real life."

Neurological Foundation

These technical measurements directly correlate with brain development and performance outcomes. Higher fidelity ratings indicate better neuroplasticity training and faster reaction times.

Deep Dive: Neuroplasticity Science | Brain Health Impacts

Complete Simulator Rankings

Type Description Proposed Rating Score Total Fidelity
Rigid Body Physics Motion System Most realistic—moves like a real car with full motion 0.95 1.805 (lab-tested)
Hexapod Platform Used by engineers—better than most but still has motion mixing and screen lag 0.49 0.49
Seat Mover Common in home setups—moves the seat only, not the whole cockpit 0.47 0.47
4-Post Actuator System Brute force movement and vibrations but lacks realistic physics and turning forces 0.40 0.40
Static Sim Just a screen and wheel—no movement at all 0.10 0.10

Ready to Evaluate Your Simulator?

Use A Proposed Fidelity Rating framework to measure your simulation fidelity

Learn About Physics First