ABSTRACT
Flight simulator design has been driven since the early part of the last century by a design and engineering concept that equates the value of the device in direct proportion to its ability to physically replicate the aircraft's controls and displays, handling qualities and other features. This includes not only the physical layout and appearance of the aircraft cockpit, but the function of individual controls and displays. When simulator engineers speak of fidelity, it is generally the physical replication or physical fidelity of the simulator design to which they refer. Physical fidelity is extended to visual scene simulation, motion accelerations, and all other aspects of flight simulator as a means of identifying the criteria by which a particular flight simulator design should be measured. For the design engineer, the closer the design is to the ideal of full or complete physical fidelity in all its dimensions, the better the simulator design will be and the more effective the flight simulator will serve as an aircraft surrogate. This stress on physical fidelity can be seen in the terms used by the FAA in categories of flight simulators used for training. For example, only those devices which have visual scene simulation and motion cueing can be called 'flight simulators', all others must be called 'flight training devices' or 'aviation training devices'.
