If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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- |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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!!!) |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |