General Question DG IV versus XR1 DeltaGlider

[mjessick]

The plans for the Orion cockpit are very much advanced over what has been discussed here. Essentially, several display units with edge bezel keys and very few other controls. See the middle section of this for a picture of prototype hardware:
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/Orion/documents/ORION_WEEKLY_07122008.pdf

As this even earlier article describes, the intent is to increase situation awareness while avoiding the obsolescence problems that plagued the Space Shuttle where its systems were many (5 or 6) generations old by the time they were upgraded.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/in...moonx2026rsquo-and-the-space-station-too.html

 

[illender]

Heh, more like -

yeah, this one!

 

[Usquanigo]

Um... the DGIV's command interface doesn't really do that. I'm not exactly a "linux geek" per se, as mentioned I run a CLE instance of Debian for a specific purpose because that's all it needs. For me at least it's not about typing commands because it makes me feel "special", it's about the best tool for the job, and I consider the setup I run to be just that. As for the DGIV's computer, well, I've never felt special punching commands into it, and in fact, I'm not overly fond of it at all, but that's personal opinion, I suppose.



Yes, they do. A GUI requires an entirely different approach to rendering the interface than does a command-line environment. I'll concede that a bare-bones approach, something like fluxbox, doesn't weigh much, and that's because it was designed to. Don't believe me? Try putting a fully-featured GNOME desktop on an older box with little by way of graphics hardware. Or better yet, put Windows 7 on it, and revel in the glory of Aero rendered at about 2 FPS.

You cite phones as resource limited devices, and of course they are, but that's not at least the only reason they come with GUIs on them. GUIs are easier to use, and thanks to the popularity of Windows, they're commonplace, so people expect to see them. But even more critically than that, even on those handsets with a little QWERTY keyboard built in, phones are not the easiest devices in the world to type on. That's not so much of an issue when all you type into it is an SMS or an email, but when the OS on it is totally typed-command driven, that's going to be a problem.

And, not surprisingly, in order to maintain that stance, you totally ignored reality and fell back on that same, played out, bs that you (guys) ALWAYS do - stop using a 286 and buy a modern computer already.

I run XP Pro just fine on an ancient P4. It's still my main computer and gaming rig. And it plays O2010 too. I even ran Vista on an identical machine with crappy video and it was just fine. Ran EVERY bit as fast. Those machines are circa 2004 or earlier.

And THAT was the point that you wontonly ignored - the amount of resources available today in everything means that the GUI overhead is utterly inconsequential. No matter how you want to spin it or deny it, that is simply the fact. Pure and simple.

Blame Apple, or Steve Jobs, or MS or Bill Gates, or hell, even Xerox if you want to, but that is the modern age of computers, and we have phones with more processing power then the entire planet had just 2 decades ago(long after the shuttles were designed and built, btw).

Command lines are marginally useful for base utilities only (ping, tracert, ipconfig, etc), because it is faster to type than click in those cases (and they are used by so few people). Forefront TMG and Exchange 2010 don't use GUIs because the end user asking for help from the blue shirts at Best Buy expects it, those people will never sit at hte console of either of those products. They have a GUI because it's essentially "free" in terms of resources on modern servers, and because it's a much better way to interface with, and manipulate, the system. It's as simple as that. (otherwise the development time and money would not be put in to it)

 

[Xyon]

And, not surprisingly, in order to maintain that stance, you totally ignored reality and fell back on that same, played out, bs that you (guys) ALWAYS do - stop using a 286 and buy a modern computer already.

The server I'm running the command line linux on isn't a 286. Were I to take the graphics card out of this windows box and put in into it, I'd get the same kind of power I run my games with. It's not ultramodern or cutting edge, but it's no slouch, none of my equipment is. You are the one ignoring points, not me.

I run XP Pro just fine on an ancient P4. It's still my main computer and gaming rig. And it plays O2010 too. I even ran Vista on an identical machine with crappy video and it was just fine. Ran EVERY bit as fast. Those machines are circa 2004 or earlier.

I mentioned Aero, not Luna. Luna works fine on older hardware, and well it should on a box from 2004 - it's 2001 software technology, remember.

Vista has been reportedly extremely slower than XP almost everywhere I've read, and that was my personal experience with it too in a straight-out comparison test. Windows 7, conversely, is faster than XP was for me.

And THAT was the point that you wontonly ignored - the amount of resources available today in everything means that the GUI overhead is utterly inconsequential. No matter how you want to spin it or deny it, that is simply the fact. Pure and simple.

Is it? Is it really? No, of course not, though that's not the point either, I'll explain a little more. The system load on my server rig with no window manager averages 0.00, peaks at 0.5 during load (This means 0% CPU load and peaking to 50% over averages of one, five, and fifteen minutes, in case you're not familiar with *NIX load averages). The system sits inside 96 MB of RAM with three IRC bots, a mysql and ftp server all running from it over the local network.

With the same software on it I have had a system with the GNOME window manager too, the system load using exactly the same setup but with the GUI interface was 0.3 on idle, peaked at 1.10 and used up to 300 MB of RAM to do exactly the same thing. The RAM usage isn't an issue, and since it's a multicore system neither is the 110% suggested load (2.0 would be 100% of both cores), but it still resulted in slower response time regardless.

That isn't the point though. The system is a server, it sits in its own area and doesn't have a mouse attached. All the interface I need is a command line - not because it makes me feel special to use one, not because it gains the system a not insignificant performance increase, but because of this - Currently the system has been running for 14 days, 12 hours and a handful of minutes and seconds. It has run for almost all of that time sitting alone, being idle, with the monitor off, doing its thing quite happily. So where's the point in throwing a GUI on it? For those ten seconds I use it for while rebooting it or restarting the bots after a problem, it's quicker and easier for me to use a command-line command rather than traipse around menus or grab for icons in the middle of nowhere.

Blame Apple, or Steve Jobs, or MS or Bill Gates, or hell, even Xerox if you want to, but that is the modern age of computers, and we have phones with more processing power then the entire planet had just 2 decades ago(long after the shuttles were designed and built, btw).

Blame them for what? I don't have a problem with either system of interface, and I think this is another point of mine you have happily ignored. I use Windows 7 as mentioned at the top of this post, for all my web-surfing / IRC'ing / media playing / radio broadcasting / gaming usage. It's the best tool for the job to handle all that as far as I'm concerned. I use the command environment on the server for the same reason - It's the best tool for the job in hand.

Command lines are marginally useful for base utilities only (ping, tracert, ipconfig, etc), because it is faster to type than click in those cases (and they are used by so few people). Forefront TMG and Exchange 2010 don't use GUIs because the end user asking for help from the blue shirts at Best Buy expects it, those people will never sit at hte console of either of those products. They have a GUI because it's essentially "free" in terms of resources on modern servers, and because it's a much better way to interface with, and manipulate, the system. It's as simple as that. (otherwise the development time and money would not be put in to it)

There is no such thing as a "better" way, only a different way. I use the way which works best for the task at hand. My only comment was that there is nothing antiquated or obsolete about a command line.

Edit: afterthought - I heard someone say a little while ago that it's common for people who use Windows a lot with no real modern *NIX experience to believe that the CLI is obsolete and antiquated. This is due in no small part to the fact that Windows is all about the GUI, and the command line interpreter included with it hasn't really been improved since the days when it was necessary to use a Windows system, which of course it isn't anymore. So I ask you - have you used a modern linux terminal recently? They're a lot more advanced than you might think.

 

[River Crab]

Um...I don't want to get swept up in this cockpit realism thing again (I've been lambasted regarding my opinions on this before), but are you forgetting, Murphy's law also applies to computers? If you make it more complicated, it's going to have more things that can go wrong, and computers in space must have a reliability way beyond what we're used to, even in phones and stuff.
Anyway, IMO futuristic space cockpits would be in-line with, if not a bit behind, their aviation equivalent. So while I think the G42's cockpit is bang on, the default XR2's (VC) cockpit is also bang on, because that's much further into the future.

As a matter of personal preference though, I would expect something like a modern-day top-of-the-line glass cockpit in my spacecraft, which is what the G42 will have. (and kind of what the DGIV has) :thumbup: And I quite like the DGIV's CLI.

But really, just give me anything complex and cool enough and it's good. XR2 Mk II VC FTW!

 

[Usquanigo]

We start with the DG-IV command line vs XR-1 push button interface. You claim the DG-IV is "more realistic" because it uses an interface that was created in the 60s because it was the best thing that could be accomplished at the time. Yet, when we look around us, we see that EVERYTHING made these days uses a newer interface style. It was an argument with no leg to stand on even before you tried to make it.

When I pointed this out, you proceeded to whine about resources GUIs use, claiming that it slows things down, then proceeded to suggest I run Windows 7 on an old machine. THAT IS THE WHOLE DAMN POINT - stop denying and evading. It's new software made for new machines with a modern interface style. Period. I wouldn't try to run the upcoming Storm of War: Battle of Brittain on old hardware either.

Thus, the reference to linux geeks - face it, that's the majority of people here. And they always trot out that same BS you did - "older hardware". Older hardware my ass. I have older hardware and it runs the GUI just fine. But you can't even accept that, instead you have to try to twist it into your fantasy.

Let's get back to the real point here - even "devices" that are GIVEN away have the power to run a GUI. They would not run any faster or better with a command line. Phones, laptops, desktops, you name it. If it has an interface to a human, it has a GUI - even embedded devices which typically have less power than an iPhone.

So you naturally pull out the crap about the end user "expecting" it. Well, guess again. Admins are not end users, and they don't expect anything other than sofware that works reliably and under budget. Developing a GUI takes time and money. Money which could be slashed from the end cost if it wasn't spent on a GUI. Get it? There is another reason to have such a thing on a server with no intention of ever playing games - it works better. (speaking of which, NONE of my servers have powerful graphics sub-systems, but they all run GUIs... imagine that. )

And then you jump to "no, it's not better, it's just different", and I hear my step brother when he was in 5th grade saying "nuh-uhhhh!!!!" when I read that comment from you. Get over it. You can do more and faster with a GUI than you can with a command line. The actual NEED or USEFULNESS of a command line is exceedingly limited. It just makes you feel more special to use it. (go ahead, deny it again, I know you will, doesn't change the facts here)

Just because you use Windows 7 doesn't mean you aren't what I described - in fact, you proceeded to prove you are after trying to save face with the claim of being a Windows user.

I was a command line snob at one point in time. But unlike you, I evolved. I got over it. I realized that the GUI is actually a better interface.

But ALL of that - which you brought up btw, so what say we drop it in public now huh? Or will you fire back and require more volleys? - has nothing to do with the original point. GUIs are the modern interface. Full stop. Something made 50 to 100 years from now is not going to have a long start up procedure, or a command line primary interface requiring a manual to operate. It's going to be turn ke, push button and visual (graphic) - like the XR-1.

Bringing us back to the point, the XR-1 is more "realisitic" (read - "plausible") when one considers the interface and simplicity of operation of a ship not to be 'made' for many decades to centuries from now. (and of course, for a simulator, a VC trumps any 2D panel - any day)

 

[Xyon]

I'm quite happy to drop it in public since this is clearly miles off-topic in this thread, though you threw a couple of totally out-of-line stinkers my way with that last one. Feel free to come join me on IRC and we'll clear out of this thread and return it to its original topic.

 

[statickid]

HOLY SMOKES!

My original post about command lines has also been lost. My post was mainly based on a NASA TV interview about computer technology and the space shuttle, while the interviewer wanted to know why they still you toggle switches and such things that seem "outdated" They said that it was OBVIOUS that a computer could control every system on the shuttle with a simple monitor, but in FLIGHT, when split second decisions have to be made and you need such and such system to be activated RIGHT NOW, a software control system doesn't cut it. The pilots are trained to memorize the locations and functions of the switches so when they are in their chair, making the decision and executing the command are done in pretty much the same instant, because they flick the switch and its done with almost as a reflex.

GUIs are good for what they do, and it doesn't have anything to do with haxxor envy or l337ness that you guys are saying is the main block here. A flight computer has a different function than a desktop or laptop.

some of the things about vibration and the general delicateness of consumer based computing platforms that xyon was referencing are real things as well.

My original post about the command lines has nothing to do with feeling special, I was saying that if you could touch type a four digit number without looking at a keypad on a simple numberpad like the one in the dgiv without even looking down from the window and the hud in an aircraft, I would prefer this to flipping through a menu or making sure my touchscreen was on the right display and looking down to make sure i was pressing the right location of the screen as it would be smooth.

I think for some things that are more automated, like an automatic ascent or docking procedure, a touch screen computer would be AWSOME! But if i'm doing something critical and I just want something like the horizon to be level while i'm landing but i'm close to the ground and need absolute focus, i would want a hardware button or something like a command line keypad where i wouldn't even have to look down to see it.

 

[astrosammy]

Time to throw in my opinion:

Autopilots: A bit to much for me in the DG-IV and annoying time acceleration limitations but the atmospheric flight autopilot is nice, and would be a great help in the XR-1. The XR-1 attitude hold is an important and helpful autopilot for ascend and entry. I love the auto hover and airspeed hold autopilots on both vessels.

Engines: Together with the SCRAMs, ascends are just cool with it. The DG-IV is easier to launch into orbit, but the ascend is a bit boring.

Crew safety: The ejection system of the DG-IV is helpful in atmospheric flight. But it's a bit unfair that only the pilot is ejected and the others just jump out and get killed at lower altitudes. Shouldn't be to hard in reallife to blow the cabin roof away and eject the whole crew. In space it's completely senseless, the crew will be in slightly different orbits wich makes rescue hard. Only in case of a explosion it could help. The XR-1 could also need one, but in critical parts of launch and landing you are high enough to jump out through the airlock.

Damage simulation: The DG-IV breaks apart, wich is a nice visual enhancement. But the heat shield could be a bit stronger. In the XR-1 the damage simulation is just cool. In both vessels the airlock can't be used to leave the craft if the doors are damaged, that is deadly in the XR-1 and DG-IV (If you don't want to be blown away by the ejectoin seat).

Atmospheric flight: I never managed to get the DG-IV from orbit to a specific base manually. You'll need the autopilot. The DG-IV flies like a brick in final approach wich causes problems if you try to land like in the XR-1. Unpowered landings are a bit hard. The XR-1 has an amazing glide ration.

Cargo: A cool feature in the DG-IV, but the XR-1 doesn't really need it, it's a good crew transportation vessel, for cargo there is the XR-2.

So I prefer the XR-2, but also fly the DG-IV sometimes.

One thing that sometimes annoys me is that it is called Deltaglider XR-1 and not just XR-1. Sometimes when I search for the scenarios I keep jumping down to where the other vessels of the class are, while the XR-1 scenarios are nearly at the top of the list.

 

[garyw]

There is a simple way to look at this - why have a GUI when the command line does the job? Remember, GUI's take up a LOT of code. The more code, the more chance of a bug and you don't want a bug when hitting mach 1 and 30,000 whilst strapped to a burning bomb.

 

[Phed3x]

On the whole "GUI v. Command line" thing I would say that a prompt would be better because it's so basic that there isn't much of an issue. However, why not incorporate a GUI as well? I think beginners would benefit greatly from it, and if you were on a ship and the pilot couldn't fly for some reason, you can initiate autopilot as a passenger with a button push. Both have strengths and weaknesses. In today's craft, command prompt all the way because you'll be having experienced and trained personnel. In the future, you'll have less experienced pilots/passengers who will either have to memorize lines of code as a space tourist or just learn how to tap a screen.

 

[statickid]

<snip>

Atmospheric flight: I never managed to get the DG-IV from orbit to a specific base manually. You'll need the autopilot. The DG-IV flies like a brick in final approach wich causes problems if you try to land like in the XR-1. Unpowered landings are a bit hard. The XR-1 has an amazing glide ration.

<snip>

I had alot of trouble doing this, but you don't need autopilot. I wrote a program on my ti-92 that calulates delta-v and distance from base for the burn to reenter with the dg-iv at any given altitude, and to be done with the entry at a glide-friendly distance. reentry is EXTREMELY difficult to do manually, but I have done it numerous times as it is one of my favorite challenges to tackle.

Actually, the only autopilot I have ever used is the reentry assist. For a long time I though it was impossible because the craft doesn't even seem to hold the correct attitude without the autopilot and I was even convinced the code of the autopilot was unrealistically programmed out of the range of manual control. Eventually I found out that this is not true, it is just really really hard to do what the autopilot makes look like nothing.

Oh I also use the regular things like prograde,retro, horizon level and in real pinch, hold altitude, but not usually hold altitude.

I also like the way the ship breaks apart, What I have wished for some time is that the dg-iv and xr-1 could be merged into one ship with most of both ships features!

p.s. I can ALWAYS land at any specified base when there is no atmosphere

 

[Moach]

man, gotta love this place... a man asks which of two ships is more recommended and the thread blasts out into a full-blown discussion over cockpit design :thumbup:

being a programmer i am well aware that Murphy's Law has a particular fondness for applying itself to all things computer-related:uhh:

i too agree that an IPhone-like GUI for a flight computer is not unly unlikely, but a major waste of resources and has "Murphy, look here!" written all over it

ok, there's the "pilot workload" thing... but no need to go that far.... i think the Boeing FMC's have a very comfortable UI solution... it's not a commandline, but there are no graphics either... softkeys on the sides of the main display activate functions... it's quite intuitive (for über-geeks like ourselves, i mean)

there should be indeed a commandline backup mode in case Murphy decides to pay the mission a visit, that's for sure:hmm:

 

[N_Molson]

Atmospheric flight: I never managed to get the DG-IV from orbit to a specific base manually. You'll need the autopilot. The DG-IV flies like a brick in final approach wich causes problems if you try to land like in the XR-1. Unpowered landings are a bit hard. The XR-1 has an amazing glide ration.

One reason why I like the DGIV. I find that the glide slope is realistic given the aerodynamic shape of the ship. I practiced unpowered landings a lot and as long as you keep a -20° slope, things go smoothly. Keep the speed around 300 knots (not m/s !), use trim and airbrakes. Wheels down at 300 meters of altitude, pitch up until the speed drops to 200 knots, closely watch VS, and you should get a smooth touchdown :thumbup:

Targeting a base from orbit is as difficult than with the Shuttle I find. It took me lots of practice, but I'm getting quite proficient at it. S-Turns are the key with the DGIV.

 

[garyw]

Targeting a base from orbit is as difficult than with the Shuttle I find. It took me lots of practice, but I'm getting quite proficient at it. S-Turns are the key with the DGIV.

I tend to do an entry burn with most of the dV going either normal or anti-normal to bring my path closer to the base, saves on the S-turns but I'm also getting the hang of this entry stuff. :thumbup:

 

[Spacethingy]

I love all the little touches on the DG IV. Admittedly, the lack of a VC is a minus point, but hey...

Explosions? Ejection seats for UMMUs?!?!?!? :10sign:

Sorry to be not very technical, but the XR1 is no competition...

 

[Sky Captain]

The feature I like the most in XR1 (and especially in XR2) is the SCRAM engines. If you get impatient you can blast to orbit with both engines firing at full power tearing through the sky like a devil.

 

[Shadow Addict]

The feature I like the most in XR1 (and especially in XR2) is the SCRAM engines. If you get impatient you can blast to orbit with both engines firing at full power tearing through the sky like a devil.

Or you can do a graceful SCRAM ascent and save a ton of main engine fuel :lol:

 

[computerex]

I like the DGIV, it is very elegant to fly. It has some very nice, small things that make it such an excellent vessel to fly. Speed up with mains then break, and you will see inertia. The condensation on the wings is excellent, and being able to change the skin during the sim is awesome too.