This follow-on paper describes the principal methods of implementing, and documents the results of exercising, a set of six-degree-of-freedom rigid-body equations of motion and planetary geodetic, gravitation and atmospheric models for simple vehicles in a variety of endo-and exo-atmospheric conditions with various NASA, and one popular open-source, engineering simulation tools. This effort is intended to provide an additional means of verification of flight simulations. The models used in this comparison, as well as the resulting time-history trajectory data, are available electronically for persons and organizations wishing to compare their flight simulation implementations of the same models.

No abstract

No abstract

There has been a significant effort within the simulation community to standardize many aspects of flight simulation. More recently, an effort has begun to develop a formal scenario definition language for aviation. A working group within the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technical Committee has been created to develop a standard aviation scenario definition language, though much of the initial effort has been tailored to training simulators. Research and development (R&D) simulators, like the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), and training simulators have different missions and thus have different scenario requirements. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the unique tasks and scenario elements used at the VMS so they may be captured by scenario standardization efforts. The VMS most often performs handling qualities studies and transfer of training studies. Three representative handling qualities simulation studies and two transfer of training simulation studies are described in this paper. Unique scenario elements discussed in this paper include special out-the-window (OTW) targets and environmental conditions, motion system parameters, active inceptor parameters, and configurable vehicle math model parameters.

School psychology journals yield hundreds of articles each year. As these journals are often evaluated based on the impact factors they produce, the aim of this study was to provide a historically complete record of the five impact factor values for the generalist school psychology journals that yield them. This study identified impact factors beginning in 1977, 20 years earlier than previously reported, and ending in 2019. Across all years and journals, the average Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was about 1.0, the average Immediacy Index was less than 0.4, the average 5-year Impact Factor was about 2.3, the average original CiteScore was 1.8, and the average new CiteScore was about 3.0. Increases in values were evident across time, and the highest recorded values across journals are held by the Journal of School Psychology (for the JIF, 5-year Impact Factor, and both CiteScore metrics) and School Psychology Review (for the Immediacy Index). Most impact factors, with the exception of the Immediacy Index, were moderately to highly correlated. The new CiteScore values were always the highest, and Immediacy Index values were always the lowest. School psychology has added journals to the list of those indexed by major databases, and these journals have increased their impact over time.