Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-06-2010, 06:54 AM
dduff442 dduff442 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 114
Default

From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-06-2010, 07:04 AM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dduff442 View Post
From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff
Unfortunately programmers as a profession are not subject to the industry self regulation and/or government certification that governs the conduct of architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, surveyors, accountants and other professions.

The software industry is more akin to book or music publishing then any of the more traditional "professions" .
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-06-2010, 07:32 AM
julian265 julian265 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azimech View Post
Can you believe carmakers wish to delete the physical connections between steer-wheels and pedal-brakes? I'm no luddite, but this goes too far.
+1 to that. Hydraulic brakes are so simple and reliable... Perhaps a good reason to change it is if you have a completely automated braking system, but my experiences of ABS have been poor, with it degrading braking on surfaces other than smooth bitumen roads. I'll never forget the ~2003 camry that chattered it's way into an (empty) intersection, after we started braking side-by-side coming down a wet road on a slight hill. My '83 car stopped without issue. Traction control is another story of mis-automation. Try a gravel road/driveway on a moderate incline and it struggles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTE_Galway View Post
Unfortunately programmers as a profession are not subject to the industry self regulation and/or government certification that governs the conduct of architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, surveyors, accountants and other professions.

The software industry is more akin to book or music publishing then any of the more traditional "professions" .
The law makers might actually have to understand the programming process to try to regulate it... Or the government will outsource the writing of the regulations YET AGAIN and force people to PAY to find out what they are required to do.

Regulations are an interesting topic, I think what prevents a lot of mistakes within engineering are the numbers of people that check the designs, which is often the exact opposite with programming. I don't see a reason to impose regulations on non-safety critical programmers though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-06-2010, 12:15 PM
swiss swiss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zürich, Swiss Confederation
Posts: 2,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by julian265 View Post
+1 to that. Hydraulic brakes are so simple and reliable... Perhaps a good reason to change it is if you have a completely automated braking system, but my experiences of ABS have been poor, with it degrading braking on surfaces other than smooth bitumen roads. I'll never forget the ~2003 camry that chattered it's way into an (empty) intersection, after we started braking side-by-side coming down a wet road on a slight hill. My '83 car stopped without issue. Traction control is another story of mis-automation. Try a gravel road/driveway on a moderate incline and it struggles.
Well, actually ABS decreases braking distance - on any surface other than on dry tarmac.

I remember following experiment, which involved braking in snow, with and without ABS, with and without winter tires.

ABS vs conventional, winter tires:
ABS<conventional

ABS vs conventional, summer tires:
Conventional<ABS

The latter is explained by the conventional wheel locking up, building a wedge of snow in front of the tires which increases friction.
The ABS however is confused, because then summer tires can't get any grip on the snow - and the ABS doesn't want to let them slip, as result the brake stays open...

Is it possible your camry had shitty tires?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Azimech's Avatar
Azimech Azimech is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leerdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 428
Default

Who knows... it wasn't his Camry.

But anyway, the argument wasn't against ABS, which can be switched off (in the models I drive in, 1 circuit breaker) but the total absence of a hydraulic/mechanical linkage to the pereiopodical appendage (leg). Even a hydraulic system with a leak or a faulty brake vacuum pump will stop your car but if you are pushing the pedal linked to a rheostat while you've lost complete electrical power, maybe smashing your windscreen and blowing in the wind might help (choose your context).

Last edited by Azimech; 10-06-2010 at 12:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-06-2010, 01:05 PM
swiss swiss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zürich, Swiss Confederation
Posts: 2,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azimech View Post
Who knows... it wasn't his Camry.

But anyway, the argument wasn't against ABS, which can be switched off (in the models I drive in, 1 circuit breaker) but the total absence of a hydraulic/mechanical linkage to the pereiopodical appendage (leg). Even a hydraulic system with a leak or a faulty brake vacuum pump will stop your car but if you are pushing the pedal linked to a rheostat while you've lost complete electrical power, maybe smashing your windscreen and blowing in the wind might help (choose your context).
I'm your side here.
But they could design it like pneumatic truckbrakes where your need the air pressure(in our case epower) to keep the brakes open - if their system leaks air, the truck just brakes and stops.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-06-2010, 01:19 PM
Azimech's Avatar
Azimech Azimech is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leerdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 428
Default

Keep in mind the pneumatic brake system of a truck is very complex and redundant, with two pressure gauges which a driver is trained to check and act upon. All (competent and awake) drivers will stop the truck before the brakes kick in, at a safe location with opportunity to warn the traffic behind him. I had to learn this stuff.

If a car loses all power and starts braking, it could be at an unsafe spot, without emergency and brake lights. That could lead to utter disaster, especially on a dark, wet road (in a corner, on a downwards slope, etc.)

Even if the system has some kind of a capacitor and warns the driver before the brakes kick in, a lot of people ignore warning lights, interpret them wrong or simply have no clue what it means. My mother is notorious. If I didn't fill up her engine oil every now and then, she called me with the message that a combination of four lights (yes, the Citroën BX does that) came on during corners. Zero oil pressure. I've explained to her a dozen times what it means, that the manual is in the glove compartment, the oil in the trunk and how to fill up the engine. She just doesn't want to remember I guess. Finally I gave up and just bought her a different BX that doesn't use oil at all.

Last edited by Azimech; 10-06-2010 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-06-2010, 11:36 PM
julian265 julian265 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss View Post
Well, actually ABS decreases braking distance - on any surface other than on dry tarmac.

I remember following experiment, which involved braking in snow, with and without ABS, with and without winter tires.

ABS vs conventional, winter tires:
ABS<conventional

ABS vs conventional, summer tires:
Conventional<ABS

The latter is explained by the conventional wheel locking up, building a wedge of snow in front of the tires which increases friction.
The ABS however is confused, because then summer tires can't get any grip on the snow - and the ABS doesn't want to let them slip, as result the brake stays open...

Is it possible your camry had shitty tires?
It wasn't mine, I was driving next to it. It was ~3 years old at the time.

I don't claim to know about ABS and snow... I don't drive through any - but my mate's cars with ABS have each become (a little dangerously) confused on loose dirt roads, which we frequent. Hence as Azimech mentioned, they take out the ABS fuse, and regain predictable brakes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-06-2010, 07:32 AM
baronWastelan baronWastelan is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: the future home of Starfleet Academy
Posts: 628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dduff442 View Post
From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff
That's quite funny, but is it a fair comparison? People have been been building bridges for 1000's of years, and they all do practically the same thing. A single piece of software can do 100's of different things, many of them that have never been done before.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-06-2010, 08:34 AM
dduff442 dduff442 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baronWastelan View Post
That's quite funny, but is it a fair comparison? People have been been building bridges for 1000's of years, and they all do practically the same thing. A single piece of software can do 100's of different things, many of them that have never been done before.
Mmmm... depends on your definitions of 'do' and 'things'. Modern structures are complex and require careful analysis regarding the transmission of stress to the ground, possible resonance due to wind or earth tremors etc.

The claim that computers do things that have never been done before is dubious... Alan Turing determined universally exactly what computers could do. Other mathematicians determined things that computers could *not* do -- NP complete problems etc. I don't know a massive amount about any of this, but its fair to say that Turing spoke a totally different language to software engineers.

It's reasonable to question the fairness of the jibe I made -- usually nobody need die because a computer programme crashes, unlike with collapsing bridges. Some of the excuses made by the industry don't stand up to criticism, however.

Taking the internet as an example, it was built by electronics and fibre optics specialists and jpeg/mp3 etc (all basically the same tech) made it fast, cheap and economical. Microsoft and Netscape, OTOH, bequeathed us javascript, popups and security holes. Even when I think of the internet myself I think software, but it's an illusion. The hardware basically always works reliably but its invisible. The software types control the branding and somehow come away with all the cash...

dduff
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.