MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090449987 · doi:10.1108/00022660210420861

Optimization of the PD coefficient in a flight simulator control via genetic algorithms

2002· article· en· W2090449987 on OpenAlexaff
Sait N. Yurt, Metin O. Kaya, Chingiz Haciyev

Bibliographic record

VenueAircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvershoot (microwave communication)Genetic algorithmFitness functionSettling timeControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmSimulationMechanism (biology)Function (biology)Computer scienceMotion (physics)Step responseEngineeringControl engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study the design of motion‐based flight simulators is carried out by specifying the performance required of the motion cueing mechanism, to generate translational and angular motions as a 6–3 Stewart Platform Mechanism (SPM). These motions are intended to approximate the specific forces and angular accelerations encountered by the pilot in the simulated aircraft. Firstly, the dynamics of this 6–3 SPM is given in closed form as in our earlier study. Then, for the control of obtained dynamic model, a leg‐length based PD algorithm is applied. In the optimization of the applied PD algorithm's coefficients, Real Coded Genetic Algorithms are used. So as to have faster and effective system's performance, the fitness function chosen, in Genetic Algorithms, having maximum overshoot value, settling time and steady state error which are obtained from the unit step response. The performance of the system studied is compared to the similar studies in the literature exist.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAircraft Engineering and Aerospace TechnologySame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207