Is it time to stop adding features to soaring software? Is it timeto focus on reliability?

We tend to focus on ease of use, function and support when we select a flavor soaring software. But what about reliability and robustness? It seems entirely possible to be mislead by erroneous output from a digital adviser. For example, the glider computer might erroneously advise that you have enough altitude to make an upwind transition of a ridge.

Many software programs will work flawlessly most of the time, only to fail when tested at a "boundary condition"; an unusual set of conditions exposes an underlying defect in the code.

1.Does anyone have any true life cases of bad information being provided by a digital assistant in the air?

2.Assuming that a piece of software works most of the time, having more users, using the software for more hours, under a greater variety of conditions, increases the possibility of finding a hidden defect. Once the defect manifests, it still has to be recognized and reported. How many people use each variety of gliding software? Would that correlate with robustness?

3.One of the drawbacks of adding features or fixing defects in a program is the 'rule of unforeseen consequences'. The new feature or bug fix might have the side effect of introducing new hidden defects. Every time a new version of software is released, the confidence level in that software should be reset or at least lowered. We often assume that a new version will be more reliable and that everything that used to work will still work. That is usually true when software goes from alpha to beta version, but mature software can suddenly be broken by a new release. Soaring software is edging into the zone of precarious maturity.

Now that a number of soaring programs have implemented a rather broad menu of features, I would love for a development team to stop introducing new features and instead focus on increasing the reliability and robustness of the software, and thereby increase the justifiable confidence in the software..

An open source software project like XCSoar is in a good position to do this, because the developers are only paid in kudos, glory, and self-satisfaction. (There is no revenue stream to maintain). There are proven techniques for finding hidden defects, for example 1)Code inspection 2)Functional testing 3)Exhaustive model-based automated testing.

Adding new features is sexy and fun while inspecting code and testing is the opposite. It's too bad really, because one day a hidden software defect is going to lead to a fatal pilot error.

On Monday, December 10, 2012 4:53:16 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
We tend to focus on ease of use, function and support when we select a flavor soaring software. But what about reliability and robustness? It seems entirely possible to be mislead by erroneous output from a digital adviser. For example, the glider computer might erroneously advise that you have enough altitude to make an upwind transition of a ridge.



Many software programs will work flawlessly most of the time, only to fail when tested at a "boundary condition"; an unusual set of conditions exposes an underlying defect in the code.



1.Does anyone have any true life cases of bad information being provided by a digital assistant in the air?



2.Assuming that a piece of software works most of the time, having more users, using the software for more hours, under a greater variety of conditions, increases the possibility of finding a hidden defect. Once the defect manifests, it still has to be recognized and reported. How many people use each variety of gliding software? Would that correlate with robustness?



3.One of the drawbacks of adding features or fixing defects in a program is the 'rule of unforeseen consequences'. The new feature or bug fix might have the side effect of introducing new hidden defects. Every time a new version of software is released, the confidence level in that software should be reset or at least lowered. We often assume that a new version will be more reliable and that everything that used to work will still work. That is usually true when software goes from alpha to beta version, but mature software can suddenly be broken by a new release. Soaring software is edging into the zone of precarious maturity.



Now that a number of soaring programs have implemented a rather broad menu of features, I would love for a development team to stop introducing new features and instead focus on increasing the reliability and robustness of the software, and thereby increase the justifiable confidence in the software.



An open source software project like XCSoar is in a good position to do this, because the developers are only paid in kudos, glory, and self-satisfaction. (There is no revenue stream to maintain). There are proven techniques for finding hidden defects, for example 1)Code inspection 2)Functional testing 3)Exhaustive model-based automated testing.



Adding new features is sexy and fun while inspecting code and testing is the opposite. It's too bad really, because one day a hidden software defect is going to lead to a fatal pilot error.

I'm still using XCSoar 5.2.4, because it has everything I NEED, and runs with Stone-Axe reliability on my iPAQ 3950, which is STILL the best display in sunlight I've seen yet.

I'm still using XCSoar 5.2.4, because it has everything I NEED, and runs with Stone-Axe reliability on my iPAQ 3950, which is STILL the best display in sunlight I've seen yet.

I'm stil using SoarPilot, usually with a Palm Tungsten "T" or sometimes with a Windows 5 device with a Palm emulator. It does everything I need. There is an active YahooGroup of users, that is becoming quieter all the time because no one seems to be able to come up with more improvement requests. Frank Paynter used this at one time, and I'm not sure what he uses now or what prompted a change. a list of what SoarPilot doesen't do would make for interesting reading.

The hardware is getting old, but is still very readable in sunlight. Nevertheless, I have installed XCSOAR and LK8000 on a PDA to play with in the car this winter. Here's the problem with that: It's going to take me a long time to become as throughly familiar with those, and even longer to trust them. I fear errors of use more than software errors.

Fortunately we seem to have passed the point where we think that free means inferior, but we still think that pretty means better.

So, until somthing substantial happens with screens, I'm sticking with what I've got.

In article ,
AGL wrote:

I'm still using XCSoar 5.2.4, because it has everything I NEED, and runs
with Stone-Axe reliability on my iPAQ 3950, which is STILL the best display
in sunlight I've seen yet.

I'm stil using SoarPilot, usually with a Palm Tungsten "T" or sometimes with
a Windows 5 device with a Palm emulator. It does everything I need. There
is an active YahooGroup of users, that is becoming quieter all the time
because no one seems to be able to come up with more improvement requests.
Frank Paynter used this at one time, and I'm not sure what he uses now or
what prompted a change. a list of what SoarPilot doesen't do would make for
interesting reading.

The hardware is getting old, but is still very readable in sunlight.
Nevertheless, I have installed XCSOAR and LK8000 on a PDA to play with in the
car this winter. Here's the problem with that: It's going to take me a long
time to become as throughly familiar with those, and even longer to trust
them. I fear errors of use more than software errors.

Fortunately we seem to have passed the point where we think that free means
inferior, but we still think that pretty means better.

So, until somthing substantial happens with screens, I'm sticking with what
I've got.

Same here! I still find SoarPilot on an old Tungsten T to be the best
system for me. Simple, easy to configure, and much better sunlight
readability than anything else I have tried. In over 8 years of flying
with SoarPilot, I have had to do a reset in flight just once, and that
was because of a damaged connector. I tried LK8000 on a Mio Moov. Even
with the screen brightness hack could not see it well enough to be
usable.

I am very interested in efforts with the eInk Nook and hope they are
successful. My old Tungstens won't last forever...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:37:35 -0600, Wallace Berry wrote:

Same here! I still find SoarPilot on an old Tungsten T to be the best
system for me. Simple, easy to configure, and much better sunlight
readability than anything else I have tried. In over 8 years of flying
with SoarPilot, I have had to do a reset in flight just once, and that
was because of a damaged connector. I tried LK8000 on a Mio Moov. Even
with the screen brightness hack could not see it well enough to be
usable.

I have similar problems, but I've found that turning terrain off and
setting the background map colour to white helps a lot. Then, you find
that the LK8000 overlay numbers are hard to read because they're white
with black outlines. So, set the overlay text colour to white and check
the 'inverse colours' box and now you have solid black letters on a
mostly white map (or you could just use something like dark blue for the
text).

Of course, I mainly fly in flat parts of the UK, so if you fly where most
of the land is standing on end and terrain shading is vital this may not
be a great solution.


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

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:37:35 -0600, Wallace Berry wrote:

Same here! I still find SoarPilot on an old Tungsten T to be the best
system for me. Simple, easy to configure, and much better sunlight
readability than anything else I have tried. In over 8 years of flying
with SoarPilot, I have had to do a reset in flight just once, and that
was because of a damaged connector. I tried LK8000 on a Mio Moov. Even
with the screen brightness hack could not see it well enough to be
usable.

I have similar problems, but I've found that turning terrain off and
setting the background map colour to white helps a lot. Then, you find
that the LK8000 overlay numbers are hard to read because they're white
with black outlines. So, set the overlay text colour to white and check
the 'inverse colours' box and now you have solid black letters on a
mostly white map (or you could just use something like dark blue for the
text).

Of course, I mainly fly in flat parts of the UK, so if you fly where most
of the land is standing on end and terrain shading is vital this may not
be a great solution.

Thanks, Martin. I'll give that a try. Other than the readability issue,
a PNA and LK8000 seems like a very nice self-contained system.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

At 02:05 11 December 2012, AGL wrote:
I'm still using XCSoar 5.2.4, because it has
everything I NEED, and runs
=
with Stone-Axe reliability on my iPAQ 3950, which is
STILL the best
display=
in sunlight I've seen yet.

I'm stil using SoarPilot, usually with a Palm
Tungsten "T" or sometimes
wit=
h a Windows 5 device with a Palm emulator. It does
everything I need.
Th=
ere is an active YahooGroup of users, that is
becoming quieter all the
time=
because no one seems to be able to come up with
more improvement
requests.=
Frank Paynter used this at one time, and I'm not
sure what he uses now
or=
what prompted a change. a list of what SoarPilot
doesen't do would make
f=
or interesting reading.

The hardware is getting old, but is still very
readable in sunlight.
Never=
theless, I have installed XCSOAR and LK8000 on a
PDA to play with in the
ca=
r this winter. Here's the problem with that: It's
going to take me a
long=
time to become as throughly familiar with those,
and even longer to trust
=
them. I fear errors of use more than software
errors. =20

Fortunately we seem to have passed the point
where we think that free
means=
inferior, but we still think that pretty means better.

So, until somthing substantial happens with screens,
I'm sticking with
what=
I've got.


Having swapped my HP314 for a Vertica V1 a few
months ago, I reckon something substantial has
happened with screens. I can now manage LK8000
(data sourced from Flarm) comfortably in bright
sunlight wearing sunglasses for the first time. If you
can get a look at someone's Vertica, Glider Guider or
Oudie 2, you'll see what I mean.

Rather than put it in the car, I'd strongly recommend
playing with LK8000 at home either in sim mode or on
Condor if you have it before using it anywhere where
you need to give attention to something else. And
being ruthless about what features to disable.

An open source software project like XCSoar is in a good position to do this, because the developers are only paid in kudos, glory, and self-satisfaction. (There is no revenue stream to
maintain).
I think self-satisfaction is the primary stimulus for most open-source developers. This would also explain why they keep adding features: only when the developer himself encounters a serious
defect he will be truely motivated to fix it.

There are proven techniques for finding hidden defects, for example
Some of these practices are performed by the XC Soar team as far as I know (from hanging out on their IRC channel).

1)Code inspection
This is done extensively. I have seen _a lot_ of discussion regarding code quality, performance, architecture, etc.

2)Functional testing
XC Soar does have unit tests, if that's what you mean.

3)Exhaustive model-based automated testing.
As far as I know this is still mostly academic. When I graduated two years ago, a lot of research was still performed.
The tools I worked with mostly did code generation, using a (verified) model as the source. Now, when you already have an extensive codebase (like XCSoar), reverse-engineering that model is hard
I think.

An open source software project like XCSoar is in a good position
to do this, because the developers are only paid in kudos, glory,
and self-satisfaction. (There is no revenue stream to maintain).

I have great respect for people who do what we do in their free time. But I would dare to say that what you say above works exactly the other way around.

We're all using our free time in a way which makes sense and fun. Finding bugs, correcting them and even rewriting code just because once in the past we took some shortcuts and now we're seeing the unwanted effects is not fun.. Exactly because at Naviter we are dependent on the revenue stream we are much more motivated do re-think and re-do what we have done not-so-well in the past. Sometimes it comes at the expense of not adding as many new features as we (but not you would have liked but it pays off in reliability of the output.

There is another price that you pay for adding more features. The amount of available settings and options becomes overwhelming. It often reduces the usability of the software for the average pilot even if it does raise it for the savvy ones.

We've been through that before and it's fun to see us go through this again.. It's amazing how much time you can spend on keeping only the really absolutely the most necessary and useful settings to keep the software exactly as useable as before but simple to operate. When you add new features and you're not sure exactly what parameters will work well it's easy to just add settings for these parameters. Great for the savvy but very easy to mis-interpret for the average.

You can follow the progress of reducing the amount of settings if you install SeeYou on your Android phone/tablet (and soon also an an iPhone/iPad). We're trying really hard to have the most minimalistic settings in order to keep the usability right at the top.

It's a time sinkhole though!

Cheers,
Andrej Kolar
--
glider pilots use
http://www.Naviter.com

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:53:16 AM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
We tend to focus on ease of use, function and support when we select a flavor soaring software. But what about reliability and robustness? It seems entirely possible to be mislead by erroneous output from a digital adviser. For example, the glider computer might erroneously advise that you have enough altitude to make an upwind transition of a ridge.



Many software programs will work flawlessly most of the time, only to fail when tested at a "boundary condition"; an unusual set of conditions exposes an underlying defect in the code.



1.Does anyone have any true life cases of bad information being provided by a digital assistant in the air?



2.Assuming that a piece of software works most of the time, having more users, using the software for more hours, under a greater variety of conditions, increases the possibility of finding a hidden defect. Once the defect manifests, it still has to be recognized and reported. How many people use each variety of gliding software? Would that correlate with robustness?



3.One of the drawbacks of adding features or fixing defects in a program is the 'rule of unforeseen consequences'. The new feature or bug fix might have the side effect of introducing new hidden defects. Every time a new version of software is released, the confidence level in that software should be reset or at least lowered. We often assume that a new version will be more reliable and that everything that used to work will still work. That is usually true when software goes from alpha to beta version, but mature software can suddenly be broken by a new release. Soaring software is edging into the zone of precarious maturity.



Now that a number of soaring programs have implemented a rather broad menu of features, I would love for a development team to stop introducing new features and instead focus on increasing the reliability and robustness of the software, and thereby increase the justifiable confidence in the software.



An open source software project like XCSoar is in a good position to do this, because the developers are only paid in kudos, glory, and self-satisfaction. (There is no revenue stream to maintain). There are proven techniques for finding hidden defects, for example 1)Code inspection 2)Functional testing 3)Exhaustive model-based automated testing.



Adding new features is sexy and fun while inspecting code and testing is the opposite. It's too bad really, because one day a hidden software defect is going to lead to a fatal pilot error.

Don't be too hard on these developers. They enjoy building the code. They provide us the fruits of their labor "free of charge". To them the code is the challenge. LK8000 has reduced the CPU usage of my PNA from 20% down to 6% over the last few betas. The airspace analysis has become a "thing of beauty".

I just spent two hours studying some configuration options. I can see where some may not want to study a manual to better learn their software. In that case just don't upgrade to new versions. As the previous poster said, keep your old version that you have configured to your comfort.

I am amazed at what the shareware developers are doing for us. Keep us the good work guys!

Lane
XF