Talk:Simulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
- physical/interactive simulation (corresponding to your "real life" simulations)
- 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)
[edit] Talk items 2005
The link to "descrete event simulation" goes back to the main simulation page. -Laurel Travis, 6/25/05
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
