|
|
|
|
|
by Nevermark
536 days ago
|
|
Both are likely to be much better. Simulations may not be good enough alone, but still provide a significant boost. Simulations can cheaply include scenarios that would be costly or dangerous to actually perform in the real world. And cover many combinations of scenario factors to improve combinatorial coverage. Another way is to separate models into highly real world dependent (sensory interpretation) and more independent (kinematics based on sensory interpretation) parts. The latter being more suited to training in simulation. Obviously full real world testing is still necessary to validate the results. |
|