Why is the airplane cockpit interface so uncluttered and appealing?

+kind of

this is like everyday gnu/linux

>8hr
Meant 8$/hr

Because it's designed for professional, well trained users not lowest common denominator consumers.

cockpit-project.org/
Why is the cockpit admin interface so uncluttered and appealing?

Attached: mpv-shot0264.jpg (1920x1080, 253K)

why THE FUCK does firefox mobile not have teh bookmark import export

Flew a few times and can confirm, its absolutely incredible how precise and surprisingly easy it is to use and navigate.

Off topic - Flying was probably one of the most relaxing things ive ever done. I'd highly recommend you anons to take a couple of beginner flights to experience it.

Literally why are we paying pilots millions for a job a monkey could do for a few bananas?

>stability corrections in computer stability control is a exclusivity of 737MAX

This is the sort of article that's not wrong but it is still misleading since it doesn't address that this sort of correction is present in every aircraft.

There's no such a thing as "aerodynamically stable" in aeronautics, no matter how advanced the design is, an aircraft is is as stable as it gets, remember planes from the 50's, they were stable enough but not smooth flying, so stability corrections are present everywhere, the problem was Boeing implementation and safeguards, not the need for corrections.

They get paid $200K~$300K if they're flying large planes (seating 300+) for major airlines. They get paid that much because of the massive number of hours required both in simulator doing emergency response training and on the job as the co-pilot.

Because once in every two months the pilot earns his pay in the ten seconds he lands the plane in 50kt crosswind.

>There's no such a thing as "aerodynamically stable" in aeronautics
Sure. Although, theirs was especially bad and the software to correct this was written by literal pajeets. The manual doesn't mention that the plane is much easier to stall and has sensors/software to compensate this that override manual controls. I want to see some of the executives heads roll for this. Since it was their decision.

>There's no such a thing as "aerodynamically stable" in aeronautics
It's a mathematical property, how could it not exist?

And why do you continue with
>, remember planes from the 50's, they were stable enough
If "stability" is not an aeronautical consideration.

Also stability and "smoothness" aren't the same and while there very well might be a lot of controlling that is done to increase smoothness, having stability controlled by a computer seems like an atrocious idea.

>how could it not exist
Well.. I'd assume not in practice

Probably HMI standards or similar

Because you will literally come crashing down if it's not? It's kind of a perfect filter for bullshit ui. I wonder if there's a way to implement that principle to testing ui? Maybe if users can't get to their intended menu in a set amount of time or overlook important tooltips it fails?

Attached: 1565491600993.jpg (701x845, 149K)

Attached: soyuz2.png (640x480, 14K)

But "in practice" it means that small changes to the input should also result in small changes of behavior and while that is no mathematical definition it is something which an airplane, in most cases should obey and something which *does exist*.

In the case of the MAX without software mitigation a relatively small increase in thrust might result in stalling, a drastic consequence and with (correct) software mitigation no such drastic effects would be seen, do I do not understand how you can claim that "There's no such a thing as "aerodynamically stable" in aeronautics" when it obviously is a meaningful concept, even outside a purely mathematical model.

I do agree. Although I should mention I an not this user

Almost always, the choice is between making it easier for new users, and making it more convenient for experienced users, and former can hardly be considered the best choice.

Looks cluttered and hard to discern one status indicator from another.

It's one of the few fields where it's actually cost-effective to write good code. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how well the software works. The user's time isn't that valuable. But having an aircraft reduced to scrap, killing everyone on board, that's expensive both in money and in reputation. Sure, you can still cut corners, but it's actually cheaper to do things right the first time than it is to deal with the fallout.

Attached: nasa_programming_practices.png (528x300, 30K)

LOL non engines, enjoy your ram air turbine while you can.

They budget according to lines of code. That tells you all you need to know about how software engineering works in the industry.

This goes way back when quality of software was determined by number of k-lines.

>why airplanes need focused pilots

as someone who works for the government most of this stuff is designed on super old software intentionally designed to be convoluted so it's not easy to learn and/or teach

because its gruvbox colorscheme with very high contrast

Knew this one would come.

seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/

Way better story.

The issue is the damn thing couldn't comply with FAR 25.173 unaided. It'd hit a point where the plane would be easier to take into a stall than it would be to correct. This is uncertifiable behavior in Civil Transport Aircraft. It has been snuck by before; but U.K. regulators actually called Boeing on their bullshit with the 727 and forced them to install stick pushers.

MCAS is a whole new level of fuck up, because stick pressure alone can't compensate for the change in control dynamics, they have to forcibly re-trim the fucking plane on the fly to provide sufficient correction to compensate for the aerodynamics.

D.P. Davies on test flying the 727 and Boeing:

aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-the-boeing-747-the-trident-vc10-one-eleven-the-boeing-727/

Still hoping this disaster gets Boeing back on the path of fuck the financiers and engineering first, but... Eh... We'll see.

>accidentally hit the CYKA button

Attached: 1555989154503.jpg (559x481, 76K)

RATMAN? WHERE'S HE?

It stands for Ram Air Turbine MANual ON, it means one of the pilots pressed the button to manually deploy the RAT, a small turbine that can be used to generate compressed air and electricity when all engines stop functioning midflight.

They are about to crash.

Meanwhile, F-35 had a regression in the radar software discovered at system level testing. It should have been found two levels before that. That suggests a major collapse in quality assurance.

>mpv-shot.jpg

Out of curiosity, what are you watching?

You are missing the point. The software was designed and implemented per system requirements. This is not a fault in software engineering, rather a fault in systems engineering covered up by profit maximizing project managers.

Try looking at the bottom left.

bloat overload

Oh, sorry. Didn't notice it.

You have ten seconds to switch SCE to AUX or your moon mission will be aborted.

Attached: apollo_command_module_main_display.jpg (3000x1668, 1.66M)

Welp. We aren't going to space today. Figured it'd be on the electrical power section...

This would be ~30 screen heights in android.

Don't think those look like that anymore.

Attached: C1phLfRXcAEnyJm.jpg (1024x1024, 263K)

oh god thats so ugly ... couldnt they just use bootstrap?

The space shuttle and the dragon aren't the same thing as apollo.

while i appreciate the blind faith for the sake of playing devil's advocate the absolute morons had the audacity to ship a piece of software that did not have any built-in redundancy for critical system failure. you would have thought that their module to force angle of attack would stop working when it detects an out-of-range value instead of going full retard and pulling back on the stick until it stalls the plane and kills everyone on board

the f-35 is the end result of decades upon decades of a fundimentally flawed perspective on how to design and fund a piece of military equipment. the idea that you can throw enough money and research at a problem to overcome what was previously considered a hard limitation

because, here's the thing, it all started with the f-14. the f-14 was a complete pipe dream with an almost impossible set of requirements that was funded with the idea that they could get one plane to do everything. air superiority, ground attack, excellent high speed and low speed performance, state of the art radar, aircraft carrier landings, whatever feature the brass wanted - it had it. it was a shining example of what integrated circuits could do for the level of complexity that a given piece of machinery could operate at.

but as that level of complexity has increased, and as our understanding of aerodynamics and materials science pushed the envelope further and further, we've gotten to the point where that philosophy requires such an extreme level of complexity that it is completely impractical. the f-35 is really no different from the f-14 except that we were a lot more willing to burn money for a pipe dream in 1968 and the f-35 is at a level of complexity that is pushing the budgetary limitations of the program - and its already the single most expensive aircraft project in history

The F-35 was the first fighter jet to switch away from Ada to C and C++. They had to come up with all new tooling and static analysis tools to make up for it. It's not shocking things slipped through.

>up
>down
woah, pilots must be super intelligent

>How can you say that after Boeing?

>Be Boeing
>Try to cut costs
>Decide to outsource 787 software
>Outsource to a bunch of pajeet's for $9 an hour.
>Act surprised when their planes fall out of the sky.

I still can't get around just how fucking ugly F35 is.

Moving the control surfaces up (unless they're canards) typically pitches the nose down.

They could have reduced the complexity issue if they had brought parts of the whole to older and stable platforms such as F-16. Add just ONE thing at a time from radar, avionics, radio, IRST, designator, displays etc.
That way you could develop the air frame of the F-35 and avoid surprises in other parts. Of course, that would keep the F-16 platform alive longer than L-M would want so I can see them avoiding it. Taxpayers and pilots alike would have preferred the low risk approach.

787s have yet to crash. It's uncertain what software work for 737 MAX if any was outsourced to pajeets.

Agreed, it is ugly as sin. Funny thing is, often when things are right they also LOOK right. Pic. related, from the golden age.

Attached: Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg (5100x3996, 2.5M)

>Apu autostart in progress

Attached: f95.png (383x681, 486K)

It has to convey information as efficiently as possible and doesn't have to appeal to a retarded toddler minded consumer.

Attached: attentiongrabbingimage.jpg (979x1099, 151K)

I think it could be improved by putting an anime girl in the background.

is flightgear a good flight simulator?
I want to learn, I'm not scared of manuals and I'd like something that can run on gnu/linux

>good simulator
>free software
Pick one.

>Good software
>Free

Pick one LMAO.

Ask for genuine Microsoft software.

Nope 737 max software was outsourced.
t. Software Engineer in flight controls

This (among other things). It’s an expert system.

Because it is closed source proprietary code made for professionals

Not an advertising delivery platform.

Nothing prevents you from running proprietary software on GNU/Linux you obsessed moron.

what's a good proprietary simulator?

DCS World?

Beucase the aerospace industry is dominated by boomers to whom basic understanding of ergonomics and human-to-machine interfaces is "basically communism".
They do it to keep their jobs.
They are perfectly fucking aware that being a pilot is actually as easy as driving an automobile but the bar of entry is kept artificially high by interfaces that requires hundreds of hours to training to have a basic understanding of in order to keep "planes" from becoming a commodity because as soon as it happens they're out of the fucking window.

>combat
I want to learn to fly something like a cessna, I'm too old for fighter jets

>no detection of bad sensor in software
>not bad software engineering

Attached: 1565975478386.jpg (250x220, 6K)

It's currently most accurate flight simulator, you can fly anything in it. Personally I got it to learn flying old school heli.

when something has a service life of decades you can't cram in the latest webshit framework

That's an Airbus automated emergency checklist: it's showing what the pilots should do in the event of an 'ALL ENGs FLAME OUT', the first item being to manually deploy the ram air turbine. Not that they have already deployed it.

Except that's the landing gear handle.

X-plane 11.

DCS is mostly combat; the civilian aircraft in it are shit.

>RAT MAN ON

Attached: 6623.jpg (518x755, 46K)

>frogposter
>retarded
Go ahead and teach us how you can tell if the sensor is wrong without any alternative source of data, and without causing the protection to not trigger on a real danger situation.

The.lack of haptic feedback, and the potential for losing MFD's at an inopportune moment makes me nervous.

I guess what I'm saying is I like switches, and things I can flick, twist, and navigate by feel.

Most of that software was coded in the 60s and 70s and was perfect. The code still is used today.

Attached: muslim pilots.jpg (620x387, 233K)

is the code shared between all constructors?
what language was used that could still be compiled for modern architectures?

assembly

so they still use chips with the same architecture?

He's bullshitting you. Most avionic systems were written in C, Ada, and assembly. To say they are still using the same hardware and softrware is just wrong.

>ALL ENGs FLAMEOUT LAND ASAP
Must be a Boeing product. Freedom to not die in a horrific plane crash costs extra

That's obviously an airbus checklist, retard.

I guess you could train a neural net to learn what is "normal". Then again there will always be edge cases.

Hey I have this on a floppy!
It's a soyuz simulator for DOS

You can train neural networks to sound an alarm when encountering unknown edge cases.

what kind of screens are these anyways?
they seems like they have such a great contrast ratio I'd love to have a terminal with a screen like that for my server

>having stability controlled by a computer seems like an atrocious idea.
You are mostly right, but that's just plain wrong. Systems theory and computer hardware advanced to such a degree, no computerized plane built today is aerodynamically stable without the control system. But the control systems usually have to be mathematically proven to be correct in all circumstances. That's what the certification is for. It's not some pajeet code written in java.
A whole system can be proven to be stable, even though the actual geometry of for example a plane is not, because the control system makes it stable. The geometry and physical properties of the plane are just one part of the whole system, and don't have to be stable by themselves.

Pls explain