Talk:Simulation

One topic

One topic which I believe should be dealt with separately is Military Simulation, and in particular the history of the military simulation. 67.180.130.220 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Richard Garfield

Start 2003

I don't know exactly how this should be dealt with, but there should be either a disambiguation page, it should describe it on this page, or there should be another article page on the subject of surrealist simulation (as practiced in Breton and Eluard's The Immaculate Conception). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I am planning to merge the articles simulate and simulator be with the current article, simulation, which has the most links, and is the primary concept. --Lexor 14:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this merge was a mistake, and, no offense, shows a misunderstanding of what makes the wikipedia most useful. It should not be an online simulcram of paper encyclopedias. Wikilinks are what makes the wikipedia powerful. This article is not focuessed on a sinlge topic. It tries to address multiple topics. Readers would be far better served if topics which could stand on their own, like flight simulator, marine simulator and vehicle simulator were each standalone separate articles.

I want marine simulator on my watchlist. I don't want to be advised of changes t this article that are not related to marine simulators. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk items 2004

Reading the simulation article I get the impression that different authors have very diverse definitions of simulation. This is logical as simulation is a very wide field ranging from real world simulations (such as emergency excercises) to computer based human in the loop simulations (e.g. flight simulation), and from business process simulations to computer gaming.

I do not exactly see how, but it would be nice if this article is more structured maybe referring to more specific articles about different types of simulation (real life simulations, computer simulations, hybrid ...) and, or different aspects of simulation (e.g. simulator, simulation experiment, simulation formalisms). --Roy 15:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is a problem and yes, the article did have several different authors - you should have seen the article before I did a reorganization about 6-8 months ago, it was all over the place, in fact there were about 3 articles that covered simulation, but no overarching structure and much duplication. I did (back then) attempt to do what you have suggested, with three main sections with prominent links to subarticles via the Main article: mechanism:

The breakdown currently is:

• physical/interactive simulation (corresponding to your "real life" simulations)
  • flight simulator (Main article)
  • training simulation (no article as yet)
  • engineering simulation (e.g. load tests, no article as yet)
• computer simulation (Main article)
• simulation in computer science (no main article as yet) - this is supposed to cover formalistic aspects of simulation as you suggest

If you have other suggestions for improving the structure, I'd be more than happy to incorporate them, or just go ahead and make the changes. If you end up making major structural changes, please expand them on them here in the Talk page before going ahead. --Lexor|Talk 13:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the tree is unsatisfactory because the leaves belong in multiple categories (you can call software-only flight simulators "games", but medical applications clearly include both hardware gadgets and software models). IMHO it would be best to keep the tree just for classification and move field-specific examples to sections below. Comments? 84.242.86.47 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk items 2005

The link to "descrete event simulation" goes back to the main simulation page. -Laurel Travis, 6/25/05

Talk items 2006

I performed some limited edits of the opening paragraph for (hopefully) somewhat improved clarity and readability. --ThreePD 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have removed "Role Play Simulation" as a simulation type, as it really belongs to "Virtual Simulation", where real human players work on simulated equipments in a simulated environment. Jdu 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I am a little confused by the fact that the statement Training simulations typically come in one of four categories: only lists examples of three categories. Is one category missing?

---

I think it's quite strange that this plane appears as comparable to the F-106 on that plane's page when on the Gripen's page is compared to much newer aircraft such as the RAFALE or the Eurofighter Typhoon. (190.48.240.248 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

---

I did a series of minor edits for grammar and wording in the opening paragraphs and then reworked the external link section extensively. Formerly it just globbed all the external simulation links together. I separated it into some major categories and re-allocated accordingly. I then added what I thought were some glaring omissions (lack of a link to the SCS.org and the EUROSIM consortium for two). I added a couple big lists of organizations and simulation education courses that came up as first strikes on google, and please forgive me, but I also added a couple links to some common commercial tool. I'm in no way associated with these companies and don't even personally use their software but I know they are very common in the industry (Modelica, Mathematica, and Simul8). Feel free to add, modify or delete as you think appropriate. I just wanted to take a crack at presenting some potentially useful content to readers.

ThreePD 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Patient Simulation? - 2007

I went through this article, and while they address some elements of human patient simulation I was unable to find anything substantial and/or significant. I think we really need to address this as HPS is growing rapidly in health care education. Im rather new to Wiki, how do I go about starting a new article specifically on HPS?

Allen Hanberg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahanberg (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

see Help:Starting_a_new_page :-) 89.103.168.25 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no Human Patient Simulation??

I also have searched Wikipedia for Human Patient Simulation and have come up short. As the previous comment is from 2007, I can tell that there hasn't been much progress on getting an additional page added specifically for this information content. As a new professional in the field of medical simulation, I think it would be very beneficial to have a direct Wiki site with more information on the subject. Like previously stated, Human Patient Simulation is a fast growing field with enormous potential. More and more medical learners are being exposed to simulation during their schooling.

As we know from the "Simulation" Wiki page, simulation originated in the military, more specifically the air force, but it has expanded into a whole new realm in the medical world. Health professionals of all levels are being exposed to Human Patient Simulation training. This educational tool is crucial to learners being able to expand their knowledge in no risk situations. Through the use of Human Patient Simulation, we are able to give learners a space where they can feel comfortable and practice the skills they have learned in the classroom without any risk to patients.

There are many studies out there looking at the outcomes of learners who are exposed to simulation training versus those that are not. The journal of Academic Medicine published an article relating to a study about simulation training in the medical field. This article titled "Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence" shows us that simulation training is increasing positive patient outcomes. This study included over 600 learners from many different fields of medicine and different scopes of practice (McGgahie, 2011, pg. 708).

Throughout medical training, educators have been looking for better ways to improve students' retention of information, which indubitably transfers into better patient practices. We learn from the before mentioned study that "A growing body of evidence shows that clinical skills acquired in medical simulation laboratory settings transfer directly to improved patient care practices and better patient outcomes" (McGaghie, 2011, p. 708). Traditional teaching and learning styles are being improved upon by simulation and the outcomes are outstanding. Human Patient Simulation does more than just give learners a safe haven to practice, it gives them the opportunity to expand upon and become superior in their field of practice. "The power and utility of SBME [simulation based medical education] with DP [deliberate practice] toward the goal of skill acquisition are no longer in doubt, especially compared with traditional models of clinical education" (McGaghie, 2011, p. 708).

References: McGaghie, William C. PhD, Issenberg, Barry S. MD, Cohen, Elaine R., Barsuk, Jeffrey H. MD, Wayne, Diane B. MD. (2011). Does Simulation-Based Medical Education with Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence. Academic Medicine, Vol.86, No. 6, pgs. 706-711. Sgrah019 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Sara Kagarise

Military Simulation

I think that war games and military simulation are two almost entirely different concepts in that war games require a human-in-the-loop, while military simulation as used by military agencies worldwide consists of modeling a specific scenario in computers, running it and analyzing the results. Could someone look at it please? Avmatso 04:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EP09 symulator.jpg

Image:EP09 symulator.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.138.211 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

External links

This article unfortunately seems to attract an ever-growing number of inappropriate external links. I've trimmed the links section right back (and I do mean right back!), and suggest that anyone wishing to add external links carefully read WP:LINKS first. From the guideline, external links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote websites, software, groups or organisations. If you're not sure about the suitability of a link, it can always be proposed here on the talk page for discussion. EyeSerene^talk 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical Simulation

I've created a separate page dedicated entirely to medical simulation, examples, applications, and other information regarding the subject. I did my best to adhere to Wikipedia standards, but make no promises to it being exact as I have had no prior article writing experiences with Wikipedia. Any help in cleaning up mistakes that I may have made is appreciated. In addition, perhaps it would be best to merge some of the medical knowledge from this page into my new page? Also, the History section is definitely lacking and I admit that I did not spend much time on that. Jskiles1 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtual training

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Simulation. -- DarkCrow^Caw 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

After careful consideration, almost the entire virtual training article could fit in a heading in Simulation#More examples in different areas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed. That recently created stub has potential for growth. A WP:SUMMARY here is adequate though. Besides, this article's "More examples in different areas" section is already a hodge-podge of topics in no distinguishable order. Pcap ping 11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree on potential for growth, and I find it hard to imagine anything there which shouldn't be here. Furthermore I cannot imagine criteria for determinging whehter an ap is "virtual training", a simulation for the purpose of training, a simulation for the purpose of familiarization, or a simulation for the purpose of entertainment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The expansion, if any, should be within Simulation#Simulation in education and training, with all examples moved to the specific examples section. I see no reason or likelyhood for possible expansion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Over a year, no growth in the subarticle. The only change since my comment above are grammar corrections (see Greengrocer's apostrophe) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Opposed. As a student of one of the two Modeling & Simulation Ph. D. programs in the world, I agree that there is potential for growth and the two should not be merged. In addition to the content already in existence that could be added, virtual simulation is evolving rapidly and the total amount of content available to human knowledge will continue to grow at exponential rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe7987 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  — Joe7987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed. As a simulation software engineer I am aware of several very distinct uses of simulation such as analysis, testing, entertainment, and training. Each application of simulation could be summarized in the general article, but then could easily warrant a separate article. Virtual training is simply one of those specific instances of applications of simulation technology. --Threepd 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepd (talk • contribs)

The result of the discussion is not moved. 123.24.108.135 (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect from Dream hypothesis

Could someone please explain why "Dream hypothesis" redirects here. I was looking for the Cartesian concept. Does such an article exist? --852_Charlie_Papa (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It should have been redirected to Simulated reality#Dreaming, and would have been still redirected there, except that someone redirected Simulated reality to Simulation, and a bot followed it. Fixed now, thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simulation and games

This topic occurs twice, without good reason, in this article.

The section titled "Simulation and games" should probably be merged with the section "Simulation in entertainment - Examples of entertainment simulation - Computer and video games".
In this section, the example of analog or 'paper' simulation games should probably be explicitly mentioned. Also, the statement "Moreover, they represent the interactions between the playable characters
and the environment realistically" is too broad in its given context. A distinction should be made between simulations of the experience of enagaging in an activity (such as driving a car) vs interactive
simulations of the functioning of a system (as in SimCity). In games that are an interactive model of a system, the player usually does not 'realistically interact' with the environment,
and there may be no 'playable character' as such (a good example of this would be The Sims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.34.64 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Use in simulators and simulation technology

This text was cut from Stimulation. I put it here in case anybody feels like doing something with it in this article. Lova Falk talk 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Stimulation describes a type of simulation whereby artificially generated signals are fed to real equipment or software in order to Stimulate it to produce the result required for training, maintenance or for R&D. The real equipment can be radar, sonics, instruments, software and so on. In some cases the Stimulation equipment can be carried in the real platform or carriage vehicle (that is the Ship, AFV or Aircraft) and be used for so-called "embedded training" during its operation, by the generation of simulated scenarios which can be dealt with in a realistic manner by use of the normal controls and displays. In the overall definition of simulation, the alternative method is called "emulation" which is the simulation of equipment by entirely artificial means by physical and software modelling.

Re Grey box completion and validation

“See also“ “Grey box completion and validation“ has been removed anonymously without explanation from this and several other topics. Following advice from Wikipedia if there are no objections (please provide your name and reasons), I plan to reinstate the reference in a weeks time.

The removed reference provides techniques for computer model development as is need for many simulations. In particular most models are incomplete (i.e. a grey box) and thus need completion and validation. This reference seems to be within the appropriate content of the “See also” section see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section.

BillWhiten (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Complex GPU simulation example

There is a good overview description of the complexity of CFD simulation of rocket engine combustion, where simulation is required over eight (8) orders of magnitude in time scale, and six (6) orders of magnitude in length. Fascinating talk at GTC 2015 in the past few weeks: GPUs to Mars: Full-scale Simulation of SpaceX's Mars Rocket Engine, Adam Lichtl and Steven Jones, GPU Technology Conference, spring 2015. The approach described in the talk (wavelet/grid adaptation as a means of significantly decreasing storage and compute power required to do a quality CFD simulation of complex and large combustion process like this) might be useful for improving the article. What's new is that this is being done on standard GPU acceleration chips, massively parallel, at much lower cost, and not really possible on previous processor approaches. Novel approach to doing combustion CFD with low-cost GPUs. — N2e (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005201455/http://starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm to http://www.starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written and poorly conceived

This article represents Wikipedia at its worst. Anyone hoping to gain insight about simulation will leave this article shaking their heads, wondering what they have just read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.156.67.94 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Aural Display

The bulleted item on 'headphones' is dubious. The conventional approach for 3D Audio headphones is to use an Head-related Transfer FunctionHead-related_transfer_function (HRTF) model. This is not a simulation but an emulation. The HRTF model is emulating the amplification and measurement system that was used to capture the Head-related Impulse Responses (HRIRs). In doing so, it explicitly emulates what would have been captured by the dummy-head microphone if a new sound would have be played on that system at the given location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.139.94 (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrongly Titled. Should be 'work/science/computer'...

Simulation, by any dictionary, has nothing to do with science Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 08:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

Question about classification and terminology section

Is there a reason for the order of terms in Simulation § Classification and terminology? Should the terms be ordered differently, such as alphabetically or some other way? Biogeographist (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we live in a simulation world = simulated world (= simulation world hypothesis)? (create the redirection)

1. Quantum mechanics is so complicated that the "simulation world" (here used as a single bilectic/bilexic/two-worded noun) would be identical to the natural world if its smaller components were Planck-scale[d].
2. The simulation world hypothesis is a displacement.
   1. Either some deeper world is the actual one.
   2. Either an infinite series of words provide the causality connectome without a specific first world.

Why the simulation world hypothesis is useless?

1. The universe itself is a maximally complicated quantum computer.
2. We examine the deeper layers of physics (see: Max Tegmark's struogony and David Deutsch's constructor theory) which can be interpreted as a deeper world in which the simulation exists, but actually in a way more causal way which answers more questions that cannot be avoided even by the supposed world which created the hypothetical simulation.
3. The infinite series of causality hypothesis is also more causally approached via mathematics and logic itself. The guess of living in a simulation created in a more fundamental world, not only is included in the non-simulatory/non-simulated theories, but also the causal questions are better handled. The world, finite series of worlds and infinite series of worlds which supposedly generate the simulation, cannot escape themselves from the causal questions dealt by physics foundations theories which don't include simulated worlds.

Thus the simulation world hypothesis, not only it doesn't add more to the physical foundations conundrum, but also needlessly makes it less causal, because even the worlds which produce simulations cannot escape from their foundational cause, which at some deeper degree has to be physical. Physics remains an important issue, because its foundations are informational (see: information theory), but without the need of someone playing tricks on us. That speculation adds no genuine complexity and actually it erroneously tries to keep unanswered questions regarding foundational causality.

Why the simulation world hypothesis is similar to the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis?

Because the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis like the simulation world hypothesis transfer a causal issue to a different causal layer, but without to manage the causal layer, layers or infinite layers.

In what way the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis and the simulation world hypothesis differ?

The Big Bang destroyed everything, even if we support cyclic theories of cosmology (not only one exists). Thus some alien civilization would have to be the first one, and we simply transfer the origin of life/abiogenesis from chemistry conundrum to that world. see: Jack W. Szostak on YouTube

Time travel and wormholes don't work for humans (and for human-sized objects - wormholes can be an interpretation of Planck-size[d] phenomena) who want to stay alive. see: Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube