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

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.