4 ms·

This is awesome. I've seen a much simpler one of these (and other things) behind the firewall and was pretty amazed at how much is really back there. To see tha

This is awesome. I've seen a much simpler one of these (and other things) behind the firewall and was pretty amazed at how much is really back there. To see that the systems are as reliable as they are, and that they tell you when they aren't (e.g. this ASI's fault checking), is really cool from my perspective and I believe has carried forward to more modern avionics. I really freaking love avionics. I'd love to get into software development at an avionics company but I have no clue where to start with that.

addaon 4y ago
E-mail me (@gmail) if you'd like to chat about this.
dadadad100 4y ago
Avionics, sadly is not like this anymore. When I started in avionics (late 70s, when this instrument was state of the art) I was fixing some radios that still had tubes, a mechanical crystal carriers that got moved to change frequency. In 10 years it’s was all chips. In a few more years it was glass cockpits. I saw the future and moved into programming. But for a while at least I programmed flight simulators to use my avionics knowledge. But now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims. Of course, being in a cockpit built with actual aircraft hardware with a full motion base and a visual system focused at infinity is an experience I’m glad I had. And I repaired a lot of instruments like the OP has for the sim.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims Are you sure? I'd expect the primary purpose of a pro simulator is to be a training aid in which case the simulation needs to be extremely accurate especially at edge-cases such as near/at stall speeds, various combinations of faults, etc - the dangerous stuff you'd actually want to train for and can't easily/safely replicate in a real aircraft. I'm sure consumer-grade sims do a great job at replicating routine flight, but I'd bet good money a pro sim is much more accurate at replicating let's see a stall condition.
  - dadadad100 4y ago
    The software is good, but your point is about the flight model. The flight model is all about tuning. That was not my area but I watched it being done. It started with curves from the flight testing program and then many hours of trial and error parameter tweaking until the test pilot said that it was right. I saw a session in the middle of the night where the engineer tweaked, the pilot said it needed a little more, the engineer undid the tweak and the pilot said it was perfect. I also saw some Air Force pilots in a C5 sim (they were commercial sims) who could tell if the model was right by judging when they passed over the (simulated) highway in Dover, DE for a given engine setting. They were right, according to the engineer. The point is, if you spend enough time on [1] you can tune the model. No one spends that much time on the MSFS. But for logic based stuff, like the working title VNAV implementation in the CJ4 it’s just a matter of understanding the expected logic and implementing. It is very impressive stuff. [1]https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Tutorials/Defining_A_Flight_Model.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/...
  - kjellsbells 4y ago
    I'm not claiming that MsFS is ready to train F16 pilots, but there is definitely an acceleration of convergence thing going on here. Engines like Unity, large scale mapping, pixel streaming, weather sims and the interest from high end defense contractors is going to make this a thing faster than you might think.

addaon 4y ago

E-mail me (@gmail) if you'd like to chat about this.

dadadad100 4y ago

Avionics, sadly is not like this anymore. When I started in avionics (late 70s, when this instrument was state of the art) I was fixing some radios that still had tubes, a mechanical crystal carriers that got moved to change frequency. In 10 years it’s was all chips. In a few more years it was glass cockpits. I saw the future and moved into programming. But for a while at least I programmed flight simulators to use my avionics knowledge. But now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims. Of course, being in a cockpit built with actual aircraft hardware with a full motion base and a visual system focused at infinity is an experience I’m glad I had. And I repaired a lot of instruments like the OP has for the sim.

Nextgrid 4y ago
> now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims Are you sure? I'd expect the primary purpose of a pro simulator is to be a training aid in which case the simulation needs to be extremely accurate especially at edge-cases such as near/at stall speeds, various combinations of faults, etc - the dangerous stuff you'd actually want to train for and can't easily/safely replicate in a real aircraft. I'm sure consumer-grade sims do a great job at replicating routine flight, but I'd bet good money a pro sim is much more accurate at replicating let's see a stall condition.
- dadadad100 4y ago
  The software is good, but your point is about the flight model. The flight model is all about tuning. That was not my area but I watched it being done. It started with curves from the flight testing program and then many hours of trial and error parameter tweaking until the test pilot said that it was right. I saw a session in the middle of the night where the engineer tweaked, the pilot said it needed a little more, the engineer undid the tweak and the pilot said it was perfect. I also saw some Air Force pilots in a C5 sim (they were commercial sims) who could tell if the model was right by judging when they passed over the (simulated) highway in Dover, DE for a given engine setting. They were right, according to the engineer. The point is, if you spend enough time on [1] you can tune the model. No one spends that much time on the MSFS. But for logic based stuff, like the working title VNAV implementation in the CJ4 it’s just a matter of understanding the expected logic and implementing. It is very impressive stuff. [1]https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Tutorials/Defining_A_Flight_Model.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/...
- kjellsbells 4y ago
  I'm not claiming that MsFS is ready to train F16 pilots, but there is definitely an acceleration of convergence thing going on here. Engines like Unity, large scale mapping, pixel streaming, weather sims and the interest from high end defense contractors is going to make this a thing faster than you might think.