Human Factors Guidelines for Interactive 3D and Games-Based ...

emove LRU cover panels and the LRUs themselves. It was decided, therefore, that the simulated
maintenance task would not benefit from a VR-like interface (see Figure 23) that attempted to
reproduce the use of spanners, screwdrivers and other common tools. Not only was this level of
technology unacceptable from a cost and reliability perspective, its use, as noted much earlier by
Barnett et al. (2000), would probably focus the trainees’ attention more on interfacing with the VR
through what would have been quite cumbersome and unreliable wearable equipment than on
performing the task. Consequently, LRU panel opening, LRU extraction and inspection operations
were achieved using “point-and-click” mouse inputs, combined with simple drop-down task
sequence menus. This approach has since been exploited in the HFI DTC’s SubSafe submarine
safety games-based demonstrator (described later in this document).
One interesting finding relating to end user computer experience and attitudes was made just after
the Avionics Maintenance Trainer was delivered to RAF Marham. One of the trainee Sergeants,
having attended a classroom demonstration of how to use the simulator (note that the instructor’s
keyboard and mouse were not visible during the time of the demonstration), was subsequently
observed to lift his mouse off the simulator desk and move it around in space in order to elevate his
virtual viewpoint up and over the virtual Tornado. This instance confirms that one cannot assume a
uniform distribution of computer interactive skills in one’s sample of end users.
Despite the apparent knowledge, skills and attitudes of today’s “gamer”
generation, for the foreseeable future it is important NOT to assume that
all members of a target audience will have experience with BASIC
computer interface technologies, let alone games controllers.
4.2 Hypo-/Hyper-fidelity and Distractive Elements in Simulated Tasks
Given the visual and dynamic qualities available with today’s serious gaming tools, there is an
understandable tendency for developers to stop at nothing to endow their simulations with what
they believe to be the highest (and, therefore, the most appropriate) fidelity possible. Cursory
glances at the effects in such titles as FarCry, Crysis and Half-Life 2 demonstrate this. The
impressive images of helicopter down-draught effects over water, vehicle explosions, weapon
discharge and the use of “rag doll physics” to simulate the flailing bodies of the recently deceased
certainly capture the attention of the player.
There is no doubt whatsoever that these effects far outclass anything the VR community has had to
offer to date. However, do these effects actually contribute positively to the development of
relevant skills and learning? Do they improve the probability of the transfer of said skills and
knowledge to real operational settings? Does it actually matter that the underlying particle physics
engine is capable of supporting real-time water spray or the dynamic collision effects of barrels
rolling down uneven terrain? Are these wonderfully impressive visual and behavioural effects
actually representative of what happens in the real world, or have they been exaggerated to
achieve maximum player satisfaction? Just as the VE/VR community was plagued throughout its
early existence by the proponents of “reality or nothing”, so too are the current and future
developers of games-based simulations. In some instances, their perception of reality may result in
the delivery of one special effect too many.
As summarised earlier, hypo- and hyper-fidelity are terms used to describe the inclusion of too little,
too much or inappropriate sensory and/or behavioural detail into a simulated task or context and
may lead to negative knowledge or skills transfer from the virtual to the real. Hypo- and hyperfidelity
effects can be classified according to the broad headings shown in Table 1.
In the majority of cases, hypo- and hyper-fidelity effects can be overcome following a few pretraining
exposures of the end user to the simulation. In the case of hyper-fidelity, once the “wow”
34