We landed man on the moon with less CPU power than in that ATmega 128. You can do quite a lot with an 8 bit embedded CPU or microcontroller.
Robin_253 wrote:
MSc Computer Science, University of Liverpool
Then I find your comment about addition even more surprising.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you know how computers work?
MSc Computer Science, University of Liverpool
Airborne_Again wrote:
I fail to see what the relevance of elevators are in this discussion
take the time to read my previous posts pls.
Robin_253 wrote:
You can’t expect smart behaviour from something that can only add integers.Now I find it hard to take you seriously. Do you know how computers work?
Now a smartphone would try to predict what you are trying to type and suggest some letters which would complete the word. Processing power required to execute this task is an order of magnitude greater than the one installed in an elevator. Or a Flarm.
I agree that the processing power required is greater but the processing power installed is not the same as the power required. Also, I fail to see what the relevance of elevators are in this discussion.Robin_253 wrote:
This is flarm’s marketing message or even Unique selling proposition, and it’s a lie. 2 reasons:
1. Flying a glider is unpredictable because the atmosphere is unpredictable. If someone would be flying a glider in a predictable way he would land. Of course with today’s advanced ships one can be a lousy pilot and stay airborne
Of course you can only do short-term prediction and predication doesn’t mean you know the future.
2. Even if we would disregard point 1 above, flarm’s processing power is just too low to execute any meaningful prediction algorithm.How have you reached that conclusion? Excuse me, but judging from your first comment above, you don’t seem to have much expertise with computers and programming.
Why does the flarm have to be smart ?
Age of the machine or do I just need traffic info ?
Airborne_Again wrote:
A “smartphone” is one that can run arbitrary (in principle) software. What’s “smart” about that?
You can’t expect smart behaviour from something that can only add integers. Example: 2+3=5. An elevator is at floor 2, someone presses button “5” and off we go. Is this a smart behaviour? I wouldn’t say so.
Now a smartphone would try to predict what you are trying to type and suggest some letters which would complete the word. Processing power required to execute this task is an order of magnitude greater than the one installed in an elevator. Or a Flarm.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As far as I understand how the FLARM system works for gliders, it does not give a warning just because another glider is close but it tries to predict the flight path and suppresses the warning if there is no major collision risk.
This is flarm’s marketing message or even Unique selling proposition, and it’s a lie. 2 reasons:
1. Flying a glider is unpredictable because the atmosphere is unpredictable. If someone would be flying a glider in a predictable way he would land. Of course with today’s advanced ships one can be a lousy pilot and stay airborne 
2. Even if we would disregard point 1 above, flarm’s processing power is just too low to execute any meaningful prediction algorithm.
You don’t have to trust me. Ask world’s best gliding pilot. Here he is. A very approachable guy, just ask him if flarm can “predict”.
Peter wrote:
If I was flying a glider, cross country, I would radiate both FLARM and Mode C. The lithium battery is not big these days.
Peter, please do try, I even invited you for a ride. And I bet a bottle of good slivovica that you would turn the flarm off after 15 minutes in a gaggle.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Have you actually flown to an airfield which has AFIS?
Certainly have, and I stand by my comments. IMO the ‘Flugleiter / AFIS’ only muddies the waters (or the air, if you prefer…).
Transponders are absolutely the wrong solution for gliders.
Except that I had two scary airproxes with what were almost certainly gliders. One over the Sussex Downs very close to the Shoreham 20 approach path (I climbed at 1000fpm and so did he, for quite a while, right under / behind me). The other was when departing from Zell am See. On the former one, ATC were sure it was a glider; we get lots of them there, flying from a glider base at Parham right across the Shoreham final approach path.
If I was flying a glider, cross country, I would radiate both FLARM and Mode C. The lithium battery is not big these days.
Robin_253 wrote:
Well, how would you define smartness?
I wouldn’t — it doesn’t really mean anything. A “smart house” is one where the lights can be controlled remotely. A “smartphone” is one that can run arbitrary (in principle) software. What’s “smart” about that?
But I would understand the word in practise to refer to a certain degree of useful functionality beyond what would be obvious. Again, that has very little to do with processing power. Slightly more to do with the sophistication of algorithms, but not even that to a major extent.
As far as I understand how the FLARM system works for gliders, it does not give a warning just because another glider is close but it tries to predict the flight path and suppresses the warning if there is no major collision risk. That could be said to be “smart” with my understanding of the word.
