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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LINUX flight software
Apparently, there are a few people out there working with Linux for gliding
applications. (Thanks for the links) Maybe it's a good thing. I keep thinking that the potential user base in this space is so small that if the PDA based apps split it, there won't be all that much profit to support a commercial business - especially with a price war. So, we are back to the hobbyist/enthusiast hacker who tends to like Linux/GPL anyway. This person just wants some recognition for expertise and contribution made. Gliding software might make a good resume entry. Should someone take up the challenge, I'd like to see something along the lines of an x86 based (lots of small, cheap, powerful, highly configurable, 12V boxes like those from Via) with the in-flight software developed on a very small, hard real-time Linux kernel with an API like DIAPM RTAI. This removes all the constraints of the PDA platform. (Somehow, I just don't think a pocketable device designed for to-do and a contact lists is a great platform for advanced soaring software, even if they are widely available.) This approach offers the chance to do the entire panel in a gliding specific "glass cockpit" with a screen size that's actually big enough to read at a glance. Bill Daniels |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
Apparently, there are a few people out there working with Linux for gliding applications. (Thanks for the links) Maybe it's a good thing. Yes, there are. I am one of them. I keep thinking that the potential user base in this space is so small that if the PDA based apps split it, there won't be all that much profit to support a commercial business - especially with a price war. So, we are back to the hobbyist/enthusiast hacker who tends to like Linux/GPL anyway. This person just wants some recognition for expertise and contribution made. Gliding software might make a good resume entry. It does, actually. I am currently in contact with a potential employee who seems to be very interested in my work. I'm not sure what you are suggesting though, that I am undermining the commercial glidersoftware business? Should someone take up the challenge, I'd like to see something along the lines of an x86 based (lots of small, cheap, powerful, highly configurable, 12V boxes like those from Via) with the in-flight software developed on a very small, hard real-time Linux kernel with an API like DIAPM RTAI. This removes all the constraints of the PDA platform. (Somehow, I just don't think a pocketable device designed for to-do and a contact lists is a great platform for advanced soaring software, even if they are widely available.) This approach offers the chance to do the entire panel in a gliding specific "glass cockpit" with a screen size that's actually big enough to read at a glance. Problem is: these devices a -too powerhungry -too hard to install in a cockpit. I am working on an application called Cumulus on the PDA platform. But, it's easy to port to x86. In fact, most of the development work is done on x86. André projectleader of Cumulus |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"André Somers" wrote in message ... Bill Daniels wrote: Apparently, there are a few people out there working with Linux for gliding applications. (Thanks for the links) Maybe it's a good thing. Yes, there are. I am one of them. I keep thinking that the potential user base in this space is so small that if the PDA based apps split it, there won't be all that much profit to support a commercial business - especially with a price war. So, we are back to the hobbyist/enthusiast hacker who tends to like Linux/GPL anyway. This person just wants some recognition for expertise and contribution made. Gliding software might make a good resume entry. It does, actually. I am currently in contact with a potential employee who seems to be very interested in my work. I'm not sure what you are suggesting though, that I am undermining the commercial glidersoftware business? Nope, just pointing out that it's likely to be a labor of love rather than a serious effort to get rich. Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work. Should someone take up the challenge, I'd like to see something along the lines of an x86 based (lots of small, cheap, powerful, highly configurable, 12V boxes like those from Via) with the in-flight software developed on a very small, hard real-time Linux kernel with an API like DIAPM RTAI. This removes all the constraints of the PDA platform. (Somehow, I just don't think a pocketable device designed for to-do and a contact lists is a great platform for advanced soaring software, even if they are widely available.) This approach offers the chance to do the entire panel in a gliding specific "glass cockpit" with a screen size that's actually big enough to read at a glance. Problem is: these devices a -too powerhungry -too hard to install in a cockpit. André projectleader of Cumulus Really? I see systems that pull less than 750ma. That would go for more than 8 hours on a 7.5AH battery. Spend a little more for a Li-Ion polymer battery and 10 - 15 hours are possible. The systems are about the same size as a CD drive (5.5 inch form factor). I've got plenty of room for that and the battery. As for the screen, I have dry-fitted a 15" screen over my panel and I have room to spare. It just needs to hinge at the top so I can flip it up out of the way if I need to see the old round gauges. I am working on an application called Cumulus on the PDA platform. But, it's easy to port to x86. In fact, most of the development work is done on x86. I read your web page and I'm really impressed. Waaay cool! Bill Daniels |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
I'm not sure what you are suggesting though, that I am undermining the commercial glidersoftware business? Nope, just pointing out that it's likely to be a labor of love rather than a serious effort to get rich. Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work. I didn't start this project to get rich. I like OpenSource. That concept has allready made Cumulus far better than I had ever been able to make myself, because we now have a number of contributors and we are free to use code from other GPL projects. Cumulus will always remain OpenSource. So yes, It is a labor of love. Nothing wrong with that either, is there? Problem is: these devices a -too powerhungry -too hard to install in a cockpit. Really? I see systems that pull less than 750ma. That would go for more than 8 hours on a 7.5AH battery. Spend a little more for a Li-Ion polymer battery and 10 - 15 hours are possible. The systems are about the same size as a CD drive (5.5 inch form factor). I've got plenty of room for that and the battery. As for the screen, I have dry-fitted a 15" screen over my panel and I have room to spare. It just needs to hinge at the top so I can flip it up out of the way if I need to see the old round gauges. And how much power does your (touch) screen draw? I would be really interested to see such a setup, and I must say I find the concept intreaging. Maybe you can fit, say, a 10" screen in your pannel. That would allready be a huge improvement over a PDA screen, and I must say that the additional CPU power of an x86-based system would give some *very* nice options indeed... I am working on an application called Cumulus on the PDA platform. But, it's easy to port to x86. In fact, most of the development work is done on x86. I read your web page and I'm really impressed. Waaay cool! Thanks. The webpage is a bit outdated, and the screenshots are pretty old... Stuff looks better now, and 1.2 will be a lot cooler feature-wise :-) André |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"André Somers" wrote in message ... And how much power does your (touch) screen draw? I would be really interested to see such a setup, and I must say I find the concept intreaging. Maybe you can fit, say, a 10" screen in your pannel. That would allready be a huge improvement over a PDA screen, and I must say that the additional CPU power of an x86-based system would give some *very* nice options indeed... André Some of these screens draw about 650ma @ 12V with the brightness all the way up. I don't know if this is a good number or if there are better screens. A narrow viewing angle would reduce the demands on the backlight. What are your thoughts on Real-Time Linux for this application? Bill Daniels |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
"André Somers" wrote in message ... And how much power does your (touch) screen draw? I would be really interested to see such a setup, and I must say I find the concept intreaging. Maybe you can fit, say, a 10" screen in your pannel. That would allready be a huge improvement over a PDA screen, and I must say that the additional CPU power of an x86-based system would give some *very* nice options indeed... André Some of these screens draw about 650ma @ 12V with the brightness all the way up. I don't know if this is a good number or if there are better screens. A narrow viewing angle would reduce the demands on the backlight. What are your thoughts on Real-Time Linux for this application? I guess that depends on what you want to do with it. For one, you can't use it for primairy instruments, at least not here. The greatest power of using a computer is where it is used now too: navigational aid and flightcomputer functions. For that, you don't really need a RT system IMHO. André |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"André Somers" wrote in message ... What are your thoughts on Real-Time Linux for this application? I guess that depends on what you want to do with it. For one, you can't use it for primairy instruments, at least not here. The greatest power of using a computer is where it is used now too: navigational aid and flightcomputer functions. For that, you don't really need a RT system IMHO. André Well, you probably couldn't CERTIFY a computer display for the primary instruments (without a lot of money) but by displaying the primary instrument data on the computer screen, all the flight data would be in one place and easy to read. Keep the old primary instruments in the panel to keep things legal and just hinge the thin computer screen over them so that if you need to peek just lift the screen. Bill Daniels |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
"André Somers" wrote in message ... What are your thoughts on Real-Time Linux for this application? I guess that depends on what you want to do with it. For one, you can't use it for primairy instruments, at least not here. The greatest power of using a computer is where it is used now too: navigational aid and flightcomputer functions. For that, you don't really need a RT system IMHO. André Well, you probably couldn't CERTIFY a computer display for the primary instruments (without a lot of money) but by displaying the primary instrument data on the computer screen, all the flight data would be in one place and easy to read. Keep the old primary instruments in the panel to keep things legal and just hinge the thin computer screen over them so that if you need to peek just lift the screen. Apart from the legal aspects, I don't really see many advantages to making the primairy instruments electronic (or obscuring them with a screen,wich is illegal here I think). The "normal" instruments are very easy to interpret (it has been shown that round dials are by far the easiest to comprehend for the human brain: judging angles is easier than judging a distance or reading and interpretting a figure.) That doesn't say that you couldn't use the data also on the screen, but I would not make it primairy. An electronic system *is* more likely to fail, if only due to poor battery conditions. Having said that, I haven't found a useable x86 system yet. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but a system like a VIA EPIA board still takes about 30W. Using a 12V battery, that means 2,5A. That's a heavy load; my battery would last maybe two, max three hours. And that is without a screen... André |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
André Somers wrote:
... The "normal" instruments are very easy to interpret (it has been shown that round dials are by far the easiest to comprehend for the human brain: judging angles is easier than judging a distance or reading and interpretting a figure.) ... Not obviuous for me. Head up displays use rather vertical scales with a moving index. I remember some Mercedes cars about 40 years ago had also a speed indicator of this type, a colored bar filling less or more of a vertical slot with a scale on the border. The color changed when your speed was above the max allowed inside towns. At that time it was purely mechanical, just a colored disc behind the slot rotating like the usual needle around a pivot at the bottom of the slot, with a boundary that was a spiral rather than a circle. Such an airspeed indicator in a saiplane would probably easier to comprehend than some round dials with more than one turn and 2 different values under the needle. However the limitation of space to that of a standard instrument would not allow it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So how comes that these linear indicators can't be found anymore ? All car
manufacturers on this planet ignoring human perception ? I also had something like this on a Citroën GS... -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "Robert Ehrlich" a écrit dans le message de ... André Somers wrote: ... The "normal" instruments are very easy to interpret (it has been shown that round dials are by far the easiest to comprehend for the human brain: judging angles is easier than judging a distance or reading and interpretting a figure.) ... Not obviuous for me. Head up displays use rather vertical scales with a moving index. I remember some Mercedes cars about 40 years ago had also a speed indicator of this type, a colored bar filling less or more of a vertical slot with a scale on the border. The color changed when your speed was above the max allowed inside towns. At that time it was purely mechanical, just a colored disc behind the slot rotating like the usual needle around a pivot at the bottom of the slot, with a boundary that was a spiral rather than a circle. Such an airspeed indicator in a saiplane would probably easier to comprehend than some round dials with more than one turn and 2 different values under the needle. However the limitation of space to that of a standard instrument would not allow it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 03:26 PM |
Free Flight Planning Software | Dean Wilkinson | Products | 0 | September 18th 04 10:44 PM |
Flight instructors as Charter Pilots | C J Campbell | Piloting | 6 | January 24th 04 08:51 AM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |