3 ms·
> For tests in departure resistance, we truly had to trick the system. We would disengage all the self-protect mechanisms to put it into an out-of-control regim
by ambicapter 8y ago
> For tests in departure resistance, we truly had to trick the system. We would disengage all the self-protect mechanisms to put it into an out-of-control regime. And then we would allow the controller to wake up. It would recognize the situation it was in, and then it would get itself out of the situation. Absolutely fascinating. It will null all of the pitch rates, yaw rates, and roll rates to the extent that you can get it out the attitude that you’ve got it into.
> When it comes to true departure resistance, we allowed the system to be 100 percent engaged, and we would [fly like] a very badly trained pilot. So everything that I have been taught not to do as a pilot since the age of—crikey, when did I first start flying? Maybe 13—I was being asked to do.
I would love to read about the people who code these sort of controls systems.
- tlrobinson 8y ago> I would love to read about the people who code these sort of controls systems. I feel like Falcon 9's control systems (for example) would be a weekend hobby project for them.
- cushychicken 8y agoThose test conditions are absurd. I would never want to be in a position where firmware I wrote had to cold boot, detect position, and correct the plant at 10,000 feet/5Gs!
- golergka 8y agoThat really puts previous reports about bugs in F-35 software under different perspective. Of course they spent so much time to debug this, the requirements seem to basically be a fully autonomous and capable auto-pilot!