Future of Electronics In Aviation

wrote

A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.

Things are looking good...

In my experience, a test that finishes with zero problems is a failure.

On Jun 20, 4:55*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
create the system.
For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. *It would not include
dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
equipment used to manufacture the product.
The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.
Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
of an iPod.
To determine what components are considered "material", move the
product over a large distance. *Whatever components move with the
products, those components are considered material. *Those that stay
behind are something else.

Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".

Not true.

Accountants define material cost as above becasue material cost is a
per-unit cost that cannot be amortized. It is a necessary evil of
selling a product.

Let's take an example:

I can buy a new Sony DVD player for about $50.
I can buy Microsoft Flight Simulator for about $50.
Let us say that the development cost for the DVD player is $2 million.
Let us say that the development cost for MSFS is $5 million.

Sony and Microsoft sell their respective products to make a profit.
Let us assume that the market for each, in terms of number of
consumers, is exactly 1 million in 1 year. In that case, each product
will generate gross revenue of $50 million. But there is a problem: in
addition to the development cost, there is a per unit material cost,
the cost that the Microsoft and Sony must pay for the components that
form the product.

In the case of the DVD player, we assume that the material cost,
including resistors, capacitor, laster, motor, stabilizers, cases,
manuals, and packaging, etc. is $35, yielding a per-unit profit margin
of $15.

In the case of MSFS, the per-unit material cost is due to the manuals
and packaging, which we conservatively say costs $5, yield a per-unit
profit margin of $45.

If the packaging is eliminated, as is often the case, then the
material-cost effectively goes to zero for MSFS as does the
distribution cost. The per-unit profit of the software then becomes
the entire $50. If the packaging is eliminated from the DVD player,
the profit only rises to $20.

If, upon release, 1 million units of DVD player are desired, Sony can
expect $20 million in revenue.

If, upon release, 1 million units of MSFS are desired, Microsoft can
expect $50 million in revenue.

If both companies determine through market research that $7 is the
magic price point for each product, where demand becomes effectively
unsatiable, meaning 100 million units,...

Microsoft can sell 100 million at $7 for $700 million in profit.

Sony will not be able to sell and units because $7 is below the price
they need to sell to avoid a loss.

This is why software companies succeed even with marginally-desirable
products. The material cost and distribution costs become close to
zero, allowing them to test demand/price elasticity over the full
domain of variables. Also, problems with suppliers are almost non-
existent, as the suppliers are only used to supply tools that make the
products, not components of the products themselves. This eliminates
opportunities for the suppliers to "ride the market", where they know
a priori that a component is only used in, say military applications,
and will charge exhorbitant fees for the part simply because they can.

Also, the "manufacturing" cost of software is essentially zero:

To make 1 million DVD players, there is a per-unit manufacturing cost
of operating the assembly machines (and people) is some number greater
than 0.

To make 1 million copies of software, the per-unit manufacturing cost
is essentially zero.

These facts becomes more clear when the software becomes downloadable.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:55?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
create the system.
For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. ?It would not include
dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
equipment used to manufacture the product.
The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.
Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
of an iPod.
To determine what components are considered "material", move the
product over a large distance. ?Whatever components move with the
products, those components are considered material. ?Those that stay
behind are something else.

Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".

Not true.

Accountants define material cost as above becasue material cost is a
per-unit cost that cannot be amortized. It is a necessary evil of
selling a product.

Let's take an example:

I can buy a new Sony DVD player for about $50.
I can buy Microsoft Flight Simulator for about $50.
Let us say that the development cost for the DVD player is $2 million.
Let us say that the development cost for MSFS is $5 million.

Sony and Microsoft sell their respective products to make a profit.
Let us assume that the market for each, in terms of number of
consumers, is exactly 1 million in 1 year. In that case, each product
will generate gross revenue of $50 million. But there is a problem: in
addition to the development cost, there is a per unit material cost,
the cost that the Microsoft and Sony must pay for the components that
form the product.

In the case of the DVD player, we assume that the material cost,
including resistors, capacitor, laster, motor, stabilizers, cases,
manuals, and packaging, etc. is $35, yielding a per-unit profit margin
of $15.

In the case of MSFS, the per-unit material cost is due to the manuals
and packaging, which we conservatively say costs $5, yield a per-unit
profit margin of $45.

If the packaging is eliminated, as is often the case, then the
material-cost effectively goes to zero for MSFS as does the
distribution cost. The per-unit profit of the software then becomes
the entire $50. If the packaging is eliminated from the DVD player,
the profit only rises to $20.

If, upon release, 1 million units of DVD player are desired, Sony can
expect $20 million in revenue.

If, upon release, 1 million units of MSFS are desired, Microsoft can
expect $50 million in revenue.

If both companies determine through market research that $7 is the
magic price point for each product, where demand becomes effectively
unsatiable, meaning 100 million units,...

Microsoft can sell 100 million at $7 for $700 million in profit.

Sony will not be able to sell and units because $7 is below the price
they need to sell to avoid a loss.

This is why software companies succeed even with marginally-desirable
products. The material cost and distribution costs become close to
zero, allowing them to test demand/price elasticity over the full
domain of variables. Also, problems with suppliers are almost non-
existent, as the suppliers are only used to supply tools that make the
products, not components of the products themselves. This eliminates
opportunities for the suppliers to "ride the market", where they know
a priori that a component is only used in, say military applications,
and will charge exhorbitant fees for the part simply because they can.

Also, the "manufacturing" cost of software is essentially zero:

To make 1 million DVD players, there is a per-unit manufacturing cost
of operating the assembly machines (and people) is some number greater
than 0.

To make 1 million copies of software, the per-unit manufacturing cost
is essentially zero.

These facts becomes more clear when the software becomes downloadable.


Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Jon Woellhaf wrote:
wrote

A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.

Things are looking good...

In my experience, a test that finishes with zero problems is a failure.

I never said it was the first set tests...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
software.

You don't have much training or experience with safety-critical software, right?



I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.

Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
(or any system).

The state-of-the-art for establishing/proving the safety of software-intensive
systems isn't particularly mature.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:41 am, Jim Stewart wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
dynamically.

Can you actually cite some numbers and studies
or are you just making this stuff up?

Not sure what you mean. I haven't given any numbers, so there are no
numbers to site.

If you are asking if I could show that a computer can do a better job
of increasing fuel efficient, that is intuitively obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_by_wire#Fly-by-wire

If you Google "fly by wire fuel efficiency stability", there will be
many links saying the same thing - a computer can do a much better job
than human pilot for these things.

It was proven back in the 30's or 40's that after
an airplane flies into a pocket of turbulence,
it's too late for either a pilot or a computer
to make much difference. The *only* way to fix
the problem is with a 20-30 foot boom ahead of
the aircraft structure that can sense and react
to the turbulence ahead of time.

Hmm...

Well, generally speaking, if a pilot possesses knowledge of how to
handle aircraft, that knowledge can be programmed into the control
computer, and whatever it is, a computer can react with greater speed
and precision than a pilot could, while remaining within specified
constraints. And a computer doesn't get nervous.

As to fuel economy, perhaps you can tell me how
a computer could tune the radio and get winds
aloft readings and pick the best altitude for
cruise? Since it can't, it is unlikely that it
could do a better job than a pilot. OTOH, if
you have some concrete evidence to the contrary,
I'd love to see it.

I cannot not, because no one (that I know of, is doing that yet).

There are many ways to d this, using old technology, or the NextGen
stuff that FAA is raving about.

OLD TECHNOLOGY:

With a software radio of appropriate bandset, it is possible to tune
to any of tunable frequency of the radio stack. With some powerful
software radios, like the ones athttp://www.vanu.com, it would is
possible to tune to all channels at once (and have power left over to
do whatever). COTS software could be used to sample the radio read-
back and convert to to digital form. This can be done not only for,
ATIS, but any radio source. Note that a software radio, because it
contains a DSP, can be used for most of the antiquated signls (VOR).
The signal processing power required to process such signals is not
suprisingly very low.

Once the information is digital form, the rest is easy.

But there is more.

1.Unlike a pilot, a computer will never become annoyed by sampling
winds aloft on XC flight to hunt for optimal altitude in real-time,
the whole time.

2. A computer can also take the information an put up a real-time 3D
rendering of such winds aloft on the $200 17-inch LCD panel that you
bought from Viewsonic for your cockpit.

3. A computer could also store all winds aloft data for past 5 years
of flying on massive 1TB hard disk, that , again, cost $500.

4. A computer can take ATIS readings from local airport and
destination airport, plus METARs, etc...all over $20 USB Wi-Fi dongle,
one of 7 or 8 that you keep on board, simply because, at $20 a piece,
you can afford it.

5. A computer can give you spoken back conditions of target area,
remind you at 10-minute intervals with spoken voice fuel remaining in
both time and volume.

6. With new Wi-Fi equipment to be released soon, a computer can let
you talk to your grandaugther while in flight, via dash-mounted web-
cam, and of course, your $30 disposable-but-very-high-quality Logitech
headset.

7. A computer would let you take another $40 detachable web cam, and
mount it with sucition cups, or more permanently, as you prefer, so
you godaughter and son can see what you see as you fly over ground.

8. Some pilots might mount several such cameras around aircraft for
various views to help with boredom in flight, or other reasons.

There are 100's, if not 1000's of features, that a general-purpose
computer + inexpensive, commoditized accessories, can add to flying.

What is notable is that the cost of the $1000 PC does not increase.
Only the software and accessories change.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
conditions.
Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
ever.
So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

Dan

On Jun 20, 5:52*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:


Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
problem.

Cheers

In article
,
wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote stuff:

Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention

That's my wife's job when we fly.

I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
get to where we're headed.

so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.

When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.

On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
problem.

Cheers

See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, yawn
It's simple for me.
Ken

On Jun 20, 7:48*pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article ,
*Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
software.

You don't have much training or experience with safety-critical software, right?

No.

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.

Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
would indeed know what to look for. *Also, peer-review (by other
experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
(or any system).

The state-of-the-art for establishing/proving the safety of software-intensive
systems isn't particularly mature.

No argument here.

Every few years I meet someone who is doing research of proving
integrity of softare in general. In every case, the intellectual
effort involved in configuring the proving tool for the specific
application context is on par with the intellectual effort that would
have been employed to make the system correct in the first place.
When I point out this fact, the answer is generally, "Yes, we know,
but the idea is to eventually reach a point where the software can do
everything by itself."

Ahem.

-Le Chaud Lapin-