Drive every hazard. Risk nothing.

The whole experience of driving the vehicle, as a closed real-time loop. The trainee sits in a replica cab and uses the real controls — steering (with control-loading so it resists like the real thing), pedals, gearshift, switches and instruments. Those inputs feed a real-time vehicle-dynamics model — a mathematical model of the powertrain, brakes, tyres and suspension — running over a terrain database, which computes how the vehicle actually responds moment to moment. That response is then fed back to the driver through three synchronised channels: the motion platform (the felt acceleration, braking, pitch, roll and bumps), the out-the-window visual (the road, terrain, weather, time of day and traffic), and the instruments and sound (speed, warnings, engine and road noise). Because the loop is closed and low-latency, the driver’s own actions change what they feel and see just as in the real vehicle, so the skills being built are the right ones. On top of that, the instructor can change the world — weather, night, terrain — and inject faults, which is what makes it a training device rather than a game.

Because driving is a physical skill, and the body’s balance sense is part of it. A 6-DOF (six-degree-of-freedom) motion platform can move in all six ways a body can — three linear (surge fore-aft, sway side-to-side, heave up-down) and three rotational (pitch, roll, yaw) — which lets it reproduce the onset of acceleration, braking, cornering, a skid, a kerb strike or rough terrain. That matters because a driver reacts to what they feel as much as to what they see: a rear end starting to slide is felt before it is seen, and a trainee who only has a screen never learns that cue. The clever part is motion cueing (or “washout”): a real vehicle can accelerate for a long time, but a platform has a limited stroke, so the algorithms deliver the sharp, informative onset of a motion at full fidelity and then quietly wash the platform back to centre below the threshold the inner ear can detect. Six degrees of freedom is the established standard for a convincing ground-vehicle trainer; simpler platforms (fewer axes) are used for lower-fidelity or part-task trainers where cost and footprint dominate. We size the platform — stroke, payload, dynamics — to the vehicle and the training task.

They train completely different skills and are separate products, deliberately. Our firing training simulators are about marksmanship and gunnery — aiming and engagement on indoor lanes and force-on-force ranges. This driving simulator is about vehicle operation — driving the vehicle: steering, gears, braking, terrain, hazards, convoy discipline. There is no weapon, no aiming and no firing anywhere in a driving simulator; the trainee is a driver, and the whole system — the cab, the motion, the dynamics, the scenarios — exists to build driving competence. We keep the two as distinct systems on purpose, because the fidelity that matters is different: a driving trainer lives or dies on its vehicle dynamics and motion cueing, and that is what this page is about. (If a platform needs both driver and crew training, they are integrated as separate, well-defined subsystems — not blurred together.)

All three share engineering, but they do different jobs. Our integration simulator is a test platform — it exists to integrate and validate mission and system hardware (a hardware-in-the-loop environment for equipment), so the “user” is a system being proven. Our dynamic-motion & tilt test platform is a motion platform used for testing — it moves a piece of equipment through real-world motion so its stabilisation or behaviour can be tuned and qualified. This driving simulator uses the same class of 6-DOF motion platform, but points it at a human being: the motion, the cab and the visuals exist to train a driver. The common thread is exactly why we can build it credibly — the motion platform is our own engineering (it is the same six-actuator competence as our dynamic-motion test platform and our servo-hydraulic actuators), so unlike a pure software-house integrator, the physical heart of the simulator is built in-house rather than sub-contracted.

We integrate specialist software and displays into a simulator whose physical heart we build ourselves — and we are clear about the split. What Neometrix engineers and builds is the 6-DOF motion platform, the replica cab (structure, controls, control-loading, instruments), the instructor-station hardware, and the system integration that makes motion, visual, cab and software behave as one low-latency machine — plus installation, commissioning and training. What is typically bought-in from specialists is the image generator and visual / terrain database, the vehicle-dynamics software model, the projection or LED display channels and the computing. That division plays to strength: the hard mechanical and integration engineering — the platform, the cab and making everything agree in real time — is our own, and the visual and dynamics software is best sourced from established simulation specialists and tuned to the vehicle. To be plain about status: this is offered engineered-to-order and quoted against driving-simulator requirements; no specific delivered simulator is claimed on this page.

Yes — provided the fidelity, the cueing and the training design are right, which is exactly where the engineering effort goes. Decades of practice, from aviation to heavy vehicles, show that skills learned on a well-built simulator transfer to the real vehicle, and for certain lessons the simulator is actually better: you can rehearse a skid, a brake failure or a night mountain descent safely, pause and repeat it, and measure the response — none of which is possible or wise on a real vehicle. The transfer depends on three things being right: vehicle-representative dynamics (it must behave like the vehicle, not a generic car), matched, low-latency motion and visual cues (so the trainee learns real cues, not artefacts), and a sound training design (an instructor, a fault library, objective scoring and a debrief). The usual and correct model is simulator-then-vehicle: the simulator builds the fundamentals and rehearses the dangerous cases cheaply and safely, and confirmation and final assessment happen on the real vehicle — which reduces fuel, wear, risk and instructor time while raising the standard drivers reach.