1. Virtual Proving Ground Terrain Validation by Dr. David Lamb, Dr. Alex Reid, Nancy Truong, John Weller ( IVSS-2003-MAS-1) 3 rd Annual Intelligent Vehicle Systems Symposium National Defense Industrial Association 10 June 2003 Presented by: Nancy Truong US Army TACOM-TARDEC National Automotive Center (NAC) Ground Vehicle Simulation Laboratory (GVSL)

2. Outline Background Information about Lab Visual Churchville Virtual Profilometer Validation Process/Methodology NURBS Conclusions Background Information about Lab Visual Churchville Virtual Profilometer Validation Process/Methodology NURBS Conclusions

3. RMS Capable of reproducing the ride of most ground vehicles Realistic environment The Evans and Sutherland ESIG HD/3000 and Harmony Image Generators. Real-time warfighter/hardware-in- the-loop simulation Aberdeen Proving Ground’s (APG) Churchville

4. Why Do We Need More Resolution? To aid in the application of high-fidelity modeling and simulation techniques to the development/testing of new vehicle systems and emerging technologies. To include: –motion-based, human- and hardware-in-the- loop simulations. –high-resolution virtual testing of systems.

5. Terrain Limitations High-resolution dynamic model requires very small terrain resolution Higher resolution terrains cannot be rendered in real-time. Typical terrain grids come no smaller than 30m x 30m and most areas typically are even lower resolution. Use of terrain for primarily off-road simulations

6. Visual Correlation Questions How does the low-resolution IG database correlate to the high- resolution dynamic database? Does it need to? Why?

7. Visual Correlation Needed to mitigate simulator sickness Creates a more realistic virtual environment Use Bump-Map Texturing

8. GVSL Human Factors Vehicle performance Motion Sickness Comparison of head-mounted display (HMD) vs flat panel Human Factors Vehicle performance Motion Sickness Comparison of head-mounted display (HMD) vs flat panel

9. Components of a Real-Time Simulation Mathematical Model Virtual Environment Real-Time Computer Experimental Environment

10. Churchville Visual- what we see Terrain- what we feel Visual- what we see Terrain- what we feel

11. Validate the Terrain Acquired the data for the virtual terrain, Obtained the x & y coordinates Input data into the virtual profilometer Acquired the data for the virtual terrain, Obtained the x & y coordinates Input data into the virtual profilometer

12. Virtual Profilometer Acts the same way a profilometer acts over a read proving ground Simulates a trailer Reports other terrain properties stored in the database Acts the same way a profilometer acts over a read proving ground Simulates a trailer Reports other terrain properties stored in the database

13. Equal distance spacing Input-Constant time delta, but at a variable speed Output- Constant space delta

14. Arc Length Formula

15. Interpolation of points Once the arc length (distance) down the course to each point in the input series is computed, then interpolate to get points the desired distance apart. This is the new point, where the interpolation parameter is The desired distance is s, other distances are for the two points

16. Other Features A rough Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the course Various input and output formats are supported Options for track offset (left and right) or single track (centerline) available A rough Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the course Various input and output formats are supported Options for track offset (left and right) or single track (centerline) available

17. Profile Data MATLAB Linear interpolation Two curves start and stop at the same point Virtual proving ground correlated well with large terrain changes MATLAB Linear interpolation Two curves start and stop at the same point Virtual proving ground correlated well with large terrain changes

18. Moguls Virtual terrain has sharper hills and valleys Sampling and construction

19. RMS Values Removed wavelengths greater than 18m Real-terrain is 4.95 cm. Virtual terrain is 4.57 cm. A difference of 8%. Removed wavelengths greater than 18m Real-terrain is 4.95 cm. Virtual terrain is 4.57 cm. A difference of 8%.

20. PSD Virtual terrain is much lower than the real terrain Construction of polygons Virtual terrain is much lower than the real terrain Construction of polygons

21. NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines

22. Churchville Without Bump- Mapped Texture

23. Churchville With Bump- Mapped Texture

24. Conclusion Need to validate models Real and virtual terrain comparisons NURBS Work on other APG databases Need to validate models Real and virtual terrain comparisons NURBS Work on other APG databases

25. Questions For further information on this presentation, contact: Dr. David Lamb LambD@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-5209LambD@tacom.army.mil Dr. Alex Reid, ReidA@tacom.army.mil (586)-753-2212ReidA@tacom.army.mil Nancy Truong, TruongN@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-8633TruongN@tacom.army.mil John Weller, WellerJ@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-8633WellerJ@tacom.army.mil Motion Base Technologies Team TACOM-TARDEC 6501 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, MI 48397 AMSTA-TR-N MS: 157, Bldg 215 For further information on this presentation, contact: Dr. David Lamb LambD@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-5209LambD@tacom.army.mil Dr. Alex Reid, ReidA@tacom.army.mil (586)-753-2212ReidA@tacom.army.mil Nancy Truong, TruongN@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-8633TruongN@tacom.army.mil John Weller, WellerJ@tacom.army.mil (586)-574-8633WellerJ@tacom.army.mil Motion Base Technologies Team TACOM-TARDEC 6501 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, MI 48397 AMSTA-TR-N MS: 157, Bldg 215