Glider Racing in the future

[SF]

TOPIC: "Racing in the Future: Should We Moderate the Impact of Technology?"

John Godfrey (QT) began competing in gliders in 1984. He was elected to the US Competition Rules Committee in 2008 and has chaired the committee since 2013. In addition he has served as Competition Director for National championships, Scorer for both International and US contests, and US Team Captain for the 2006 WGC.

John's key interest is in increasing participation by making/keeping racing fun and affordable for people like him (i.e., those unlikely to win a National). In addition to presenting a road map for coming technologies and their possible impact, he looks forward to thoughtful and lively interactions with the audience on these issues.

Thursday Feb. 18, 2016 2:30 - 3:15 PM
SSA Convention Greenville SC
www.ssaconvention.org

Flarm on, you flarming Flarmers
SF

[SF]

You guys saving it up for John's talk? This is the future. Somebody say something snarky about the future.

SF

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

[[email protected]]

Le mardi 9 février 2016 10:03:23 UTC-5, Pat Russell a écrit*:
> It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

Easier to predict the past!!!!

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:13:23 PM UTC-5, SF wrote:
> Somebody say something snarky about the future.

Why? "Moderating Technology" is really just trying to live in the past.

[smfidler]

OLC, no electrons of any sort (steam gauges, no electric varios, cameras), and everyone's vision equalized at 20/40!

;-)

[Dan Marotta]

Real men and women, not boys and girls, could then win the races!

Just kidding. Old stuff is really a lot of fun to play with but, to get
serious, I like the new stuff!

On 2/9/2016 10:02 AM, smfidler wrote:
> OLC, no electrons of any sort (steam gauges, no electric varios, cameras), and everyone's vision equalized at 20/40!
>
> ;-)

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

You know...and I hesitate to mention this...but you *could* try out some of the technologies of the future to see how it affects the quality of racing by using Condor.

If you set the visible distance of gliders to max, you have a rough FLARM analog. If you allow thermal helpers to be turned on without penalty, you have thermal detectors.

It would be interesting to have the US Nightly group fly with those options on several tasks and see if the usual winners remain at the top.

If the concern is that new technologies take the challenge out of the race, you'd have a bit of an idea of whether its true or whether the competition shifts to a different set of factors.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:14:50 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:13:23 PM UTC-5, SF wrote:
> > Somebody say something snarky about the future.
>
> Why? "Moderating Technology" is really just trying to live in the past.

It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to look at technological change and consider the favorable and unfavorable aspects of those changes so that participants can make informed decisions about them.
Otherwise it is only the vocal few that drive the process.
UH

[smfidler]

Truth is, for me, as long as it's all the same (15, 18, Club, etc) then I would be happy. I really don't care if we have computers.

[SF]

Will anyone admit that they have won a glider race due to having the latest gadget in their cockpit?

Is anyone willing to state that they heard it from a fellow who knew a guy that said he won a glider race due to some new geewhizbang gadget in the cockpit?

SF

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 2:42:54 PM UTC-5, SF wrote:
> TOPIC: "Racing in the Future: Should We Moderate the Impact of Technology?"
>
> John Godfrey (QT) began competing in gliders in 1984. He was elected to the US Competition Rules Committee in 2008 and has chaired the committee since 2013. In addition he has served as Competition Director for National championships, Scorer for both International and US contests, and US Team Captain for the 2006 WGC.
>
> John's key interest is in increasing participation by making/keeping racing fun and affordable for people like him (i.e., those unlikely to win a National). In addition to presenting a road map for coming technologies and their possible impact, he looks forward to thoughtful and lively interactions with the audience on these issues.
>
> Thursday Feb. 18, 2016 2:30 - 3:15 PM
> SSA Convention Greenville SC
> www.ssaconvention.org
>
> Flarm on, you flarming Flarmers
> SF

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/confession/rec.aviation.soaring/oTFpL2t5aHM/DbF55dhoEQAJ

[SF]

John can speak for himself, but my read is that he admitted to using it tactically, and he admitted to enjoying it. Don't see it credited with helping him win one. We could put John in a G-102 with a compass and a radio and he would beat most of us, without a handicap.

My vision of the future of racing does not involve electronics, its more about increasing the popularity of the sport so much That Hooters decides to offer the Sierra Fox Racing team sponsorship in the form of crew, beer wings, and a brand new glider.

Maybe not so much a vision as a wish list.

SF



SF

[Giaco]

> My vision of the future of racing does not involve electronics, its more about increasing the popularity of the sport so much That Hooters decides to offer the Sierra Fox Racing team sponsorship in the form of crew, beer wings, and a brand new glider.
>

....and make america great again!

[Dave Springford]

Soaring of the future is here - a completely autonomous RC glider has flown a 113.4 km (70.47 mi) open distance. It has also unofficially broken the cross-country soaring out-and-return world record by flying 97.2 km (60.4 mi) declared distance over approximately 4.55 hr.

All the details are in the paper from the US Naval Research Lab that you may read here:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614555

[Tim Taylor]

I admit that I have won contests because:

1. I used electic varios that were better than the pellet varios.

2. I used a GPS rather than relying only on maps.

3. I used a computer with final glide calculations rather than a wizwheels.

4. I have used PowerFlarm to improve situational awareness, especially for gliders behind me rather than rely on see and be seen.

I must be cheating with all this technology and using it for an unfair advantage over all the other pilots that refuse to use modern technology.

TT

[JS]

In February '96 I had questions about the future of soaring instrumentation.
Had a day off in Montreal, rented a car and drove to Waitsfield. Had coffee in the CAI shop, and talked with them about the glider GPS thing they had developed and tested at Omarama.
My approach was: Why should I let this thing into my cockpit?
Came away convinced it wasn't a horror. Bought their (then) new model 20.
Where would we be without that technology today?
Imagine everyone buys in to new tech, some more reluctantly than others.
The SSA convention would be a good place for technophobes to learn how to embrace new soaring technology.
Jim

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:10:27 -0800, Dave Springford wrote:

> Soaring of the future is here - a completely autonomous RC glider has
> flown a 113.4 km (70.47 mi) open distance. It has also unofficially
> broken the cross-country soaring out-and-return world record by flying
> 97.2 km (60.4 mi) declared distance over approximately 4.55 hr.
>
> All the details are in the paper from the US Naval Research Lab that you
> may read here:
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614555

Thanks for posting that. I've known about ALOFT since about 2006, due to
coverage in model flying circles, but that is the first full description
of how its thermal finding and use algorithms work that I've seen. Its
interesting that ALOFT carried a TE vario but that it was only used by
the pilot when the SBXC glider was being hand flown and was not connected
to the autopilot.

Here are another pair of links about ALOFT:

- the PHD thesis:
http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/5978/1/etd.pdf

- the competition report:
http://www.xcsoaring.com/contests/mccc/2008/report.html


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Dan Marotta]

Why must someone either purchase and install the latest technology
or... be a technophobe?

I can assure you that I've been involved with developing and operating
some of the highest technologies, things that you can't even imagine
but, if I don't want to install some technology that you think is the
cat's meow, I'm a technophobe.

There is some middle ground after all. Some call it "diff'rent strokes".

On 2/10/2016 12:58 PM, JS wrote:
> <snip>
> The SSA convention would be a good place for technophobes to learn how to embrace new soaring technology.
> Jim

--
Dan, 5J

[BobW]

On 2/10/2016 3:08 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Why must someone either purchase and install the latest technology or...
> be a technophobe?
>
> I can assure you that I've been involved with developing and operating some
> of the highest technologies, things that you can't even imagine but, if I
> don't want to install some technology that you think is the cat's meow, I'm
> a technophobe.
>
> There is some middle ground after all. Some call it "diff'rent strokes".
>
>> <snip> The SSA convention would be a good place for technophobes to learn
>> how to embrace new soaring technology. Jim
>
> -- Dan, 5J

Dan, you contentious, technophobic, piece of moose...no, wait!!! Once you get
used to "the new normal" ascendant with much of humanity being continuously
on-line, and compulsively texting to the point of having no time for nuanced
communications, you'll be just fine. Embrace your new reality! :)

Bob - happily cell-phone-less - W.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:38:36 PM UTC-5, BobW wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 3:08 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Why must someone either purchase and install the latest technology or...
> > be a technophobe?
> >
> > I can assure you that I've been involved with developing and operating some
> > of the highest technologies, things that you can't even imagine but, if I
> > don't want to install some technology that you think is the cat's meow, I'm
> > a technophobe.
> >
> > There is some middle ground after all. Some call it "diff'rent strokes".
> >
> >> <snip> The SSA convention would be a good place for technophobes to learn
> >> how to embrace new soaring technology. Jim
> >
> > -- Dan, 5J
>
> Dan, you contentious, technophobic, piece of moose...no, wait!!! Once you get
> used to "the new normal" ascendant with much of humanity being continuously
> on-line, and compulsively texting to the point of having no time for nuanced
> communications, you'll be just fine. Embrace your new reality! :)
>
> Bob - happily cell-phone-less - W.

While I would normally NOT reply to this....... I'm sorta, "On the fence". I will assume (yes, I know the acronym of this), this post was a bit of, "Tongue in check?".

BTW, have a great day.

[Dan Marotta]

:-D

On 2/10/2016 4:38 PM, BobW wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 3:08 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Why must someone either purchase and install the latest technology or...
>> be a technophobe?
>>
>> I can assure you that I've been involved with developing and
>> operating some
>> of the highest technologies, things that you can't even imagine but,
>> if I
>> don't want to install some technology that you think is the cat's
>> meow, I'm
>> a technophobe.
>>
>> There is some middle ground after all. Some call it "diff'rent
>> strokes".
>>
>>> <snip> The SSA convention would be a good place for technophobes to
>>> learn
>>> how to embrace new soaring technology. Jim
>>
>> -- Dan, 5J
>
> Dan, you contentious, technophobic, piece of moose...no, wait!!! Once
> you get used to "the new normal" ascendant with much of humanity being
> continuously on-line, and compulsively texting to the point of having
> no time for nuanced communications, you'll be just fine. Embrace your
> new reality! :)
>
> Bob - happily cell-phone-less - W.

--
Dan, 5J

[JS]

Thought I'd included myself on the technophobe list with the early GPS bit!
Perhaps there are degrees of phobia?
Most of us overcame the fear of using GPS, transponder or a pee tube.
Some people refuse to try Vietnamese soup.
Jim

[smfidler]

Yeah, yeah. I know. I just didnt want to mess too much, to fast with our only real useful anti-collision tool. ;-)

Let them (Flarm, IGC, etc) figure out a new reduced info mode that works well, is safe, etc and then we will support it...if ADSB isnt too close to being a requirement in gliders by then...

What some feel about technology may simply not be possible to ban (FAA regulations) in a very short time...

Sean

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:30:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 2:42:54 PM UTC-5, SF wrote:
> > TOPIC: "Racing in the Future: Should We Moderate the Impact of Technology?"
> >
> > John Godfrey (QT) began competing in gliders in 1984. He was elected to the US Competition Rules Committee in 2008 and has chaired the committee since 2013. In addition he has served as Competition Director for National championships, Scorer for both International and US contests, and US Team Captain for the 2006 WGC.
> >
> > John's key interest is in increasing participation by making/keeping racing fun and affordable for people like him (i.e., those unlikely to win a National). In addition to presenting a road map for coming technologies and their possible impact, he looks forward to thoughtful and lively interactions with the audience on these issues.
> >
> > Thursday Feb. 18, 2016 2:30 - 3:15 PM
> > SSA Convention Greenville SC
> > www.ssaconvention.org
> >
> > Flarm on, you flarming Flarmers
> > SF
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/confession/rec.aviation.soaring/oTFpL2t5aHM/DbF55dhoEQAJ

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 9:45:28 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> Thought I'd included myself on the technophobe list with the early GPS bit!
> Perhaps there are degrees of phobia?
> Most of us overcame the fear of using GPS, transponder or a pee tube.
> Some people refuse to try Vietnamese soup.
> Jim

Pee tube?!?!...... I still use quart sized zip-lock baggies! Sheesh, I guess I'm behind the times.....

[Dan Marotta]

On 2/10/2016 7:45 PM, JS wrote:
> Thought I'd included myself on the technophobe list with the early GPS bit!
> Perhaps there are degrees of phobia?
> Most of us overcame the fear of using GPS, transponder or a pee tube.
> Some people refuse to try Vietnamese soup.
> Jim

Or menudo or haggis or Rocky Mountain oysters...

--
Dan, 5J

[SF]

You know a topic about the future has gone off track when Vietnamese soup is mentioned.

We are addicted to technology. Not just in gliding, but in everyday life. I foresee of no conceivable way to ban it from a sport begging for more participation. The PW-5 was an attempt at limiting technology, in a trade off for affordability, that didn't turn out so well. Or is that something else I got wrong? Pretty soon I'll be banned from talking about the future, in addition to Schempp Hirth.

Bob W, dude, next time I'm working up a performance review for our sales manager, you are the first guy I gonna call.

Oh and the guy that is going to race the 1-26, those things are a blast in a one design race, just get your self a cell phone first, makes calling the retrieve desk easier.



SF

[WB]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:10:30 AM UTC-6, Dave Springford wrote:
> Soaring of the future is here - a completely autonomous RC glider has flown a 113.4 km (70.47 mi) open distance. It has also unofficially broken the cross-country soaring out-and-return world record by flying 97.2 km (60.4 mi) declared distance over approximately 4.55 hr.
>
> All the details are in the paper from the US Naval Research Lab that you may read here:
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614555

I would rather we not allow soaring autopilots in the cockpits of racing sailplanes. Guess that makes me a Luddite.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:45:53 -0800, WB wrote:

>
> I would rather we not allow soaring autopilots in the cockpits of racing
> sailplanes. Guess that makes me a Luddite.
>
I suppose that depends on what the competition is trying to measure: if
its pilot skill or the performance of a particular airframe+pilot, then
you're absolutely right.

However, if the competition is purely to pick the best glider, then
something like the scenario on Arthur C Clark's "The Wind From The Sun"
is more appropriate: the pilot handles takeoff and tow before bailing out
at the start line, leaving the autopilot to do the business.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

A cell phone for the retreave desk? Hell ive got them on speed dial when flying the 1-26 but i just wish karl would get the handicapping right, if so my little spam can would be creaming you glass boys or if they adopt that new handicapped task like they are experimenting with up in truckie, the glass boys will be the ones needing the speed dial! Lol

[SF]

I was at a sports class nationals a few years ago, and One 1-26 competed. The only day he didn't land out, was near the end of the contest, and when he landed every other competitor there quit de-rigging, and gave him a standing ovation all down the runway as he landed. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

SF

[[email protected]]

Nice to hear SF, granted one has to be slighty masocistic to try and compete in even a sport class contest with a 1-26 but I applaud that brave soul for going for it. I can say this from experience, if/when that guy moves up to anything with an l/d over 30/1 he is going to be a much better pilot than if he had never spent that time working xc in the schweizer. I did my early xc work in one then moved up to a pilatus, then up to a ventus, the struggle experienced in those lower performance birds paid of in big dividends when I finaly got into something with the performance to mask many of my mistakes. I'm now going back to the 1-26 simply due to a love for one-design racing/record flying. From how things are today, the 1-26 assoc is the only viable one-design racing in existance today.
Dan

[WB]

That former 1-26 racer now flies a DG-400. His second motor glider since the 1-26. Got tired of landing out.

[[email protected]]

Got tired of paying tow fees

[Soartech]

> All the details are in the paper from the US Naval Research Lab that you may read here:
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614555 (Downloads a PDF)

Thanks Dave!
Reading this is fascinating. Here is a quote:
"Main (control)loop rates faster than 4 Hz were
tested (up to 10 Hz), but did not appear to have a positive effect on the success of the thermal centering.
Slower rates down to 1 Hz were tested, but appeared to consistently fly through lift and have poor centering ability. The rate of 4 Hz appeared to be a good balance between computational usage and thermalling performance."

Wow, does this apply to human pilots too? If so then you have to make a decision of to turn or not and which way to turn in less than one second or you might be missing lift. Somehow this does not sound right, especially because this small scale glider is flying slower than a sailplane.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-5, Soartech wrote:
> > All the details are in the paper from the US Naval Research Lab that you may read here:
> >
> > http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614555 (Downloads a PDF)
>
> Thanks Dave!
> Reading this is fascinating. Here is a quote:
> "Main (control)loop rates faster than 4 Hz were
> tested (up to 10 Hz), but did not appear to have a positive effect on the success of the thermal centering.
> Slower rates down to 1 Hz were tested, but appeared to consistently fly through lift and have poor centering ability. The rate of 4 Hz appeared to be a good balance between computational usage and thermalling performance."
>
> Wow, does this apply to human pilots too? If so then you have to make a decision of to turn or not and which way to turn in less than one second or you might be missing lift. Somehow this does not sound right, especially because this small scale glider is flying slower than a sailplane.

Could be that the "organic computer" (human pilot) is hearing & feeling little things that indicate you're getting close to lift. This, coupled with experience:
1-Has you primed to do something
2-Allows you to focus on additional info to "premake" a decision
3-All that's left is to decide "when" to actually carry out the plan

Well...... that's how it goes for some people. ;-)

[Giaco]

>"The rate of 4 Hz appeared to be a good balance between computational usage and thermalling performance."

> Wow, does this apply to human pilots too? If so then you have to make a decision of to turn or not and which way to turn in less than one second or you might be missing lift. Somehow this does not sound right, especially because this small scale glider is flying slower than a sailplane.

This is rather interesting from a controls and handling qualities standpoint, given that the quickest most pilots are capable of responding to an aircraft is between 4 and 5 Hz... who would have thought we were optimized for anything related to flight!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:48:49 -0800, Giaco wrote:

>>"The rate of 4 Hz appeared to be a good balance between computational
>>usage and thermalling performance."
>
>> Wow, does this apply to human pilots too? If so then you have to make a
>> decision of to turn or not and which way to turn in less than one
>> second or you might be missing lift. Somehow this does not sound right,
>> especially because this small scale glider is flying slower than a
>> sailplane.
>
> This is rather interesting from a controls and handling qualities
> standpoint, given that the quickest most pilots are capable of
> responding to an aircraft is between 4 and 5 Hz... who would have
> thought we were optimized for anything related to flight!

Don't forget that ALOFT didn't use a vario: it took all its altitude and
climb rate data from the GPS receiver (they preferred climb rates read
off the GPS to autopilot's output because it was a less noisy signal),
but combined that with airspeed and (I think) pitch and roll rates output
by the autopilot. And then they downlinked all that to a laptop and
uploaded instructions, which they fed to the autopilot to control the
thermal search and centring.

I think they used a bidirectional link to a laptop, which did the
calculations, because there was nothing like the RaspberryPi or
BeagleBoard Black available at the time and also because it let them fine-
tune its calculations in real time while the model was in the air.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[ND]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:40:55 PM UTC-5, SF wrote:
> John can speak for himself, but my read is that he admitted to using it tactically, and he admitted to enjoying it. Don't see it credited with helping him win one. We could put John in a G-102 with a compass and a radio and he would beat most of us, without a handicap.
>
> My vision of the future of racing does not involve electronics, its more about increasing the popularity of the sport so much That Hooters decides to offer the Sierra Fox Racing team sponsorship in the form of crew, beer wings, and a brand new glider.
>
> Maybe not so much a vision as a wish list.
>
> SF
>
>
>
> SF

hear hear!

[aibrd]

My guess is that the primary consideration here is "poor centering" and not that the slower controller was missing thermals. The fact that the uav is slower can paradoxically require higher rate control. For a given bank angle, the turn rate is inversely proportional to speed. This means that a given amount of vario (or control) latency corresponds to a greater angular displacement around the circle.

This was and is a nontrivial challenge for autonomous sailplanes, especially when we try to implement an algorithmic version of something like Reichmann's method.

I think Charlie's right on another part of it. Humans (or at least this one anyway) fly with a lot of feedforward in their thermalling, that is we remember/anticipate where we felt the bump or vario jump on the last circle, and anticipate when to start making an adjustment.

I had the opportunity to fly our soaring uav two weeks with Dan's feedback and observations. For one of the weeks he had ALOFT out as well and we could compare side-by-side. ALOFT does indeed do everything on a laptop via radio link, which has advantages and disadvantages.

Compared to our carefully simulated and prepared software builds (our plane was running totally on-board), it was bizarre to see him ctrl-c his system, rewrite some code and boot the whole thing back up, all while the plane was a kilometer overhead. On the other hand, if the radio link got shaky, ALOFT couldn't thermal at all.

<shameless plug>
Autonomous glider presentation on Friday at the convention, learn all about them!
</shameless plug>

--
John Bird
autonomous sailplane takeoff, landing, and spin recovery specialist
AVIA Lab, Penn State

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:48:49 -0800, Giaco wrote:
>
> >>"The rate of 4 Hz appeared to be a good balance between computational
> >>usage and thermalling performance."
> >
> >> Wow, does this apply to human pilots too? If so then you have to make a
> >> decision of to turn or not and which way to turn in less than one
> >> second or you might be missing lift. Somehow this does not sound right,
> >> especially because this small scale glider is flying slower than a
> >> sailplane.
> >
> > This is rather interesting from a controls and handling qualities
> > standpoint, given that the quickest most pilots are capable of
> > responding to an aircraft is between 4 and 5 Hz... who would have
> > thought we were optimized for anything related to flight!
>
> Don't forget that ALOFT didn't use a vario: it took all its altitude and
> climb rate data from the GPS receiver (they preferred climb rates read
> off the GPS to autopilot's output because it was a less noisy signal),
> but combined that with airspeed and (I think) pitch and roll rates output
> by the autopilot. And then they downlinked all that to a laptop and
> uploaded instructions, which they fed to the autopilot to control the
> thermal search and centring.
>
> I think they used a bidirectional link to a laptop, which did the
> calculations, because there was nothing like the RaspberryPi or
> BeagleBoard Black available at the time and also because it let them fine-
> tune its calculations in real time while the model was in the air.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:32:04 -0800, aibrd wrote:

> Compared to our carefully simulated and prepared software builds (our
> plane was running totally on-board),
>
Nice one! Can you say what you're using for the onboard computer?

> it was bizarre to see him ctrl-c
> his system, rewrite some code and boot the whole thing back up, all
> while the plane was a kilometer overhead. On the other hand, if the
> radio link got shaky, ALOFT couldn't thermal at all.
>
Sounded nasty at first, but then I realised that Aloft's autopilot would
simply carry on doing what it was last told to do until the laptop came
back online, so actually its a nice trick.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[aibrd]

An Odroid XU4, similar guts to the Samsung Galaxy S5. Probably overkill, but it has worked really well for us.

I was taken aback the first time he did it, but that's exactly what happened -- it just kept on flying its search pattern until everything was back up.


On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:06:09 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:32:04 -0800, aibrd wrote:
>
> > Compared to our carefully simulated and prepared software builds (our
> > plane was running totally on-board),
> >
> Nice one! Can you say what you're using for the onboard computer?
>
> > it was bizarre to see him ctrl-c
> > his system, rewrite some code and boot the whole thing back up, all
> > while the plane was a kilometer overhead. On the other hand, if the
> > radio link got shaky, ALOFT couldn't thermal at all.
> >
> Sounded nasty at first, but then I realised that Aloft's autopilot would
> simply carry on doing what it was last told to do until the laptop came
> back online, so actually its a nice trick.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |