USAF feels Oleg's pain

[bf-110]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

I'm guessing that SoW is comparable to the F-35 software in complexity. The sim world is converging with real life aviation.

Nah..It has only a small difference.If something in SoW goes wrong,game crashes.If something goes wrong in a F-35,plane crashes too.

Other day I saw that computer viruses could infect car CPUs.I wonder if one can´t get its way trought a F-22 CPU?

[baronWastelan]

Here's how I see it: the cockpit of a new jet fighter or Airbus is actually a flight simulator, with a real airplane attached to it. So, any problem you might have with your PC could also happen to the CPU on the aircraft. Not very conforting to think about!

[AndyJWest]

Other day I saw that computer viruses could infect car CPUs.

Sounds unlikely. Where did you see this?

There are methods for reducing the harmfulness of software errors in safety-critical systems. One is to get code written by three different teams, and use 'majority voting' if there is a conflict when the system is operating. The flaw with this is it assumes that different programming teams won't make the same sort of errors - a doubtful assumption to rely on.

[dduff442]

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

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by dduff442

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" .

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Azimech

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.

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by julian265

+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?

[Azimech]

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).

[julian265]

Originally Posted by swiss

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.

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by dduff442

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.