Cable Robot Simulator [video] (opens in new tab)

> Actual linear acceleration is of limited value in simulation because...

Linear acceleration is immensely useful for sudden accelerations. Image a sudden linear acceleration (e.g. a racing car accelerating). You cannot recreate this acceleration by suddenly rotating. The angular accelerations would ruin the experience. Rather, you make a linear movement, and THEN you rotate the simulator (if you need to sustain the acceleration).

> you run out of room and have to apply an opposite acceleration, which can conflict with the simulation needs.

wrong again. If you move the simulator at slow speed, you can actually come back to the optimal position and the subject does not notice it (washout filter [1])

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_simulator#Implementatio...

Actually if your whole simulation has ||aceleration||>1g you should be able to do it perfectly (save for jerk/rotation effects) with some large centrifuge: the rate of rotation of the large centrifuge dictates the "perceived gravity" and gimbals dictate the "perceived direction". In this sense it would be perfect if you could get a centrifuge with a gimbaled end in a 0g environment.

Hey NASA, I have this one little idea for the ISS... :)

Any acceleration up to g = 9.81 m / s^2 can be easily simulated, and it can be maintained indefinitely. All you need to do is to rotate the subject so that the perceived acceleration is aligned with g, or keep it at an angle, to get a fraction of g. Interestingly, for VR you don't need to simulate velocity, as it cannot be perceived by the body.

Flight simulators have been using this approach for decades now, and it works really well: http://arabiansupplychain.com//pictures/300x200/CAE-simulato...

But this system looks to have the advantage of being able to simulate accelerations above g.

PS: Is gimbal a verb now?

[0] https://youtu.be/rrUF8Dz84rE?t=329

Additionally, the occupant is harnessed into the chair, bolted into what is essentially a spherical roll cage. Even with failure, I'm guessing there would be a crash but no serious injuries.

[1] - http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-rope-strength-d_1518....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycam

For your last question, I do think that's the way they would need to add Yaw if desired. Otherwise more cables and/or a different configuration would be needed.

As an example, check out the robocrane design from NIST: http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/gantry-2.cfm

why cables are loaded at 1.5tons. Electric motors have incredible torque and those looked like some honking big motors.

1. Could it?

Depends what you mean by "cable technology like this". I haven't seen Robots, but this kind of constrained, multiple-degree-of-freedom movement would not be possible in an "open world" -- you have to have existing infrastructure, and for something like cables (which "operate" in tension only), that infrastructure has to surround the entire "vehicle". And cables have an effective practical length limit before you run into a number of physics barriers. Now, you could have something that operates by a cable pulling a car along a predefined route, but it would be a simple linear movement. Not only can you, we already do this: most ski lifts work this way. So do, for example, the SF cable cars.

2. Even if you could, should you?

The tl;dr here is that in the vast majority of modern cases, other technology is better. If you're going to expend a whole bunch of money on infrastructure, which is necessary for public transportation in general, why not make it something higher capacity? Lightrail, or high-speed bus, or really almost any other form of public transportation is more effective. Where the ski lift approach shines is in low-volume, low-speed transport across terrain that would be very, very difficult (read: expensive) to lay tracks or road across, like mountains. Similarly, the cable car approach shines in situations where rails offer questionable traction in adverse conditions, and a positive connection with something is hugely beneficial (like a very steep hill). There are always niche applications, but I wouldn't hold my breath for widespread use.

I think the wires would get in each other's way if you had pods in the same volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours

The technical description:

> Star Tours utilizes hydraulic motion base cabins featuring six degrees of freedom, including the ability to move 35 degrees in the X-Y-Z plane. The simulator was patented as Advanced Technology Leisure Application Simulator (ATLAS), originally designed by Rediffusion Simulation[8] in Sussex, England, now owned by Thomson-CSF. The Rediffusion 'Leisure' simulator was originally developed for a much simpler show in Canada called "Tour of the Universe", where it featured a single entrance/exit door in the rear of the cabin and a video projector. The film is front-projected onto the screen from a 70 mm film projector located beneath the cockpit barrier. The Disneyland original has four simulators, while the shows in Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, and WDW Disney's Hollywood Studio each have six motion bases.

"The software developer Maria Lächele from the 8-person developers team at the Max-Planck Institute is seen amongst others as a passenger of the robot."