4 ms·

>Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? I think the way you criticize the article is about as faulty as the article its

by iSnow 8y ago

>Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? I think the way you criticize the article is about as faulty as the article itself. This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I am no expert in aviation, but I guess it's quite a safe guess that fly-by-wire systems need more processing power than mechanical/analog designs. And that a glass cockpit with a trouble database needs more than a blinking LED and a paper handbook. Nowhere in the article does the author claim the 737 MAX crashed because it had too weak CPUs. It is, however, one indication of an obsolete design - newer jets like the A320 or the 787 have more beefy processors for a reason. I know I worked in 1-dimensional transportation and their 486-based onboard-processors felt cramped, the software engineers had to hack around their limitations and they wished they could switch to something newer. I doubt 3-dimensional transportation is easier to implement.

et2o 8y ago
Thank you for taking the time to write this critique of the parent. You're totally correct.
CivBase 8y ago
> This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I address that in my post and I do not fault the author for pointing out design issues. My issue is with the implication that processing power is an issue. > Nowhere in the article does the author claim the 737 MAX crashed because it had too weak CPUs. It is, however, one indication of an obsolete design - newer jets like the A320 or the 787 have more beefy processors for a reason. Newer jets have faster processors because they're built on a newer system. If you're developing a new system, you might as well throw in some faster hardware. The cost of the hardware itself is nothing compared to the overhead development costs for avionics.
- iSnow 8y ago
  >If you're developing a new system, you might as well throw in some faster hardware. From my experience, this is not how the development of transportation systems work. They throw in faster hardware if they need it, as it is insanely expensive to do so. And I still believe glass cockpits and fly-by-wire need more computing power.

by iSnow 8y ago

et2o 8y ago

Thank you for taking the time to write this critique of the parent. You're totally correct.

CivBase 8y ago

> This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I address that in my post and I do not fault the author for pointing out design issues. My issue is with the implication that processing power is an issue. > Nowhere in the article does the author claim the 737 MAX crashed because it had too weak CPUs. It is, however, one indication of an obsolete design - newer jets like the A320 or the 787 have more beefy processors for a reason. Newer jets have faster processors because they're built on a newer system. If you're developing a new system, you might as well throw in some faster hardware. The cost of the hardware itself is nothing compared to the overhead development costs for avionics.

iSnow 8y ago
>If you're developing a new system, you might as well throw in some faster hardware. From my experience, this is not how the development of transportation systems work. They throw in faster hardware if they need it, as it is insanely expensive to do so. And I still believe glass cockpits and fly-by-wire need more computing power.