## 5 Discussion  
According to the results, the target group scored higher than the non-objective group, because they already had knowledge of the training area and were familiar with the real scenario in which the simulator was focused. However, it was evident that the usability of the system to improve the training process in such hazardous task was marginally acceptable, considering that the average grade (scale from 0 to 10) given by the focus group was 7.56 with a standard deviation (S.D.) of 2.45. This value could be correlated with the learnability obtained by the system. The six members in training from the target group also performed the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). For the implementation of this measuring instrument, the same procedure for the SUS was performed. This instrument had many questions to guarantee a more precise approach to the individual to evaluate each of the modules making up the instrument. The GEQ was composed of four modules: core, in-game, post-game and social presence modules. For the implementation of the instrument in the simulator under study, the latter was not included because this game did not include other social entities with which the player had behavioural involvement. In Appendix A, Table A2 shows the GEQ questionnaire and the six trainers' responses. The scoring was performed following the guidelines proposed in [69] (see Appendix A, Table A3) and the results are summarised in Table 6.  
The GEQ core module assesses the users' game experience. From Table 6, it is clear that most of the operators beginning training indicated a positive affect with a good immersion and game flow feeling during the first simulation session. These results broadly agree with the in-game module data, which assessed the game experience at multiple intervals during game sessions. The post-game module, which assessed how players felt after they had stopped playing, demonstrated a positive training session with minor issues in returning \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Core Module**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Operator} \\ \cline{2-7}  & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & Mean \\ \hline Competence & 0.60 & 1.00 & 2.80 & 2.00 & 0.00 & 4.00 & 1.73 \\ Sensory and Imaginative Immersion & 2.33 & 3.00 & 2.83 & 2.50 & 2.33 & 1.67 & 2.44 \\ Flow & 2.40 & 2.40 & 3.00 & 2.80 & 1.40 & 2.40 & 2.40 \\ Tension–Annoyance & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.00 & 0.67 & 3.33 & 0.00 & 0.78 \\ Challenge & 1.40 & 1.60 & 1.40 & 1.60 & 3.80 & 0.40 & 1.70 \\ Negative affect & 1.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.75 & 2.00 & 0.50 & 0.71 \\ Positive affect & 1.80 & 1.80 & 3.00 & 2.80 & 0.40 & 2.60 & 2.07 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{In-Game version} \\ \hline Competence & 0.50 & 1.00 & 3.00 & 2.00 & 0.00 & 3.50 & 1.67 \\ Sensory and Imaginative Immersion & 2.0 & 3.00 & 3.00 & 3.00 & 2.00 & 2.67 \\ Flow & 2.00 & 3.50 & 3.00 & 3.00 & 0.00 & 3.00 & 2.42 \\ Tension–Annoyance & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 3.50 & 0.00 & 0.83 \\ Challenge & 2.50 & 3.50 & 2.50 & 2.00 & 3.50 & 1.00 & 2.50 \\ Negative affect & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 2.50 & 0.50 & 0.67 \\ Positive affect & 1.50 & 3.00 & 3.00 & 3.00 & 0.00 & 3.00 & 2.25 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Post-Game Module} \\ \hline Positive Experience & 0.83 & 1.17 & 2.50 & 2.17 & 0.33 & 1.83 & 1.47 \\ Negative Experience & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.00 & 1.83 & 0.33 & 0.53 \\ Tiredness & 1.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.00 & 0.25 \\ Returning to Reality & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.00 & 1.33 & 0.00 & 0.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mean** & **S.D.** & **Min** & **Max** & **Median** & **Usability** & **Learnability** \\ \hline
60.16 & 14.76 & 15.00 & 77.5 & 63.75 & 64.65 & 42.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: SUS scores: target group. to reality. However, the GEQ instrument also showed that one of the operators did not have the best experience (during and after the test).