ZedroSWOW! Now that’s an insult my dear sir…. 😀
Well, I won’t comment excepted that it’s a proper use of uppercases 🙂
I have been testing your sens of humour, i knew you’ll love this piece of classical metal!
Nayway, you’r lucky then, if i’m so bad that i forgot to call you Fonk! 😉
Should I answer it would have been an insult ? Well, I won’t have said so anyway, but maybe I would have filled up another boring and recriminative post. I’m good at them 😀
Anyway, eager to read the rest of this saga.
++
ZedroSI got a cure for your headspining problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylQdpv8Ua1M
Try a dose when you wake up, it worked with me, and i now, do my haircut this way as well.
NO i do not yell, but as a matter of fact i laugh a lot, i’ve been laughing most of my awaken time since the publication of some recent articles (and i am serious).
hum, I was trying to be helpful, since it’s commonly accepted on the web that upper cases mean yelling. As such, it’s the way most of web readers, including me and I guess other, understand it. I even know some boards where uppercases users are warned by the mods and can be even banned if they persist.
As you look eager to prove your points again and again, yelling less would help spreading the word in a better way.
To provide some background here I could say that you behave worst that Jackonicko when he’s misspelling on purpose some other guys’ names, and furthermore this constant use of uppercases might have taken a significant share in the banning of Gegene/Fonck/Thunder and many others all over the web.
In the end, it just a matter of basic politeness and readability.
ZedroSMine is PURFECT. 😎
A side note that many will, I guess, appreciate : on the web, upper cases are used to express yelling. There is a fine explanation/source there in french : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9tiquette#Caract.C3.A8res
It would be nice that you take care of it, because it’s really disturbing when reading you, it “sounds/reads” quite like a maniac, which I hope isn’t the aim.
thanks in advance
ZedroScould someone be so kind explaining me why these differences ?
I mean the Rafale is supposed to have been designed with low cost of ownership in mind (hence this fully automated auto diagnostic system it has) and yet comes as the most expensive… Why it is so ? Cost of the spares ? Conversion from euro to anything else ?:confused:
ZedroSHere it is :
the link doesn’t work for me, I guess it’s linked to some paid abo or similar 🙁
ZedroSHoups ! with the other source from lepoint ( http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-mon…
Link is dead and I found no news about the rafale being lass that 24h of age… do you have another link ?
Here is the view of Dassault’s most respected engineer (who designed several generations of dassault fighter aircraft and whose name is historically attached to Dassault’s history) :
where from ?:o
ZedroSI think that will be killing any prospects. And frankly I think that is the best.
what do you mean exactly by “that is the best” ?
btw, is the Gripen’s engine or any of its component, subject to the US approval on export (ITAR if I remember right) ?
ZedroSThe engine won’t ever get transferred if Brazil is so anti-U.S. like Hammer suggests.
hum, is this engine subject to this ITAR stuff in the states ? Would it need some formal approval from the Congress if the Gripen was to be selected ?
++
ZedroSIn fact my main point of “worry” here is about the need for identification. In a real war/fight, do the pilots have to check before shooting ?
Because BVR sounds nice, but would a greek Mirage 2000 fire on a target 40+ km away or would it need to “identify it” before firing ?
It may be a strong point for all these tools allowing for visual identification at great distance (like the Typhoon’s Pirate or the Rafale’s OSF).
But in the end, you’re right : it will always be better to come from an higher altitude, even if only to start a dog fight.
On a side (again – sorry), I remember the F35 being said to fly low and slower than a F16, shouldn’t it impact quite negatively this plane ? Or is it true only for versions B and C ?:o
ZedroSNo. That is a generic evaluation that is repeated over the years in the greek press, with no detail as to which altitude and speed is the absolute best. It is how it is supposed to be used if a real war should occur. (snip)
thanks a lot 🙂 The video was great as well, esp. with the translations !
about this “ideal” way of working for a M2000, high speed, high altitude, do you know/think if it would be applied this way in case of a real war ? Is there any previous “real combat” occurrence like that ? => I’m curious of the actual validity of such a model…
ZedroSEurofighter does not get an operational helmet-mounted display till next year.
well, next year is coming soon 😉 should it be at the start or the end of the year ?
ZedroShi aspis
earlier you said the greek mirage 2000 were prefered for interception at high speed and altitude. do you have an idea of the speed and altitude please ?
ZedroSthanks for the title, google found the doc :
http://www.c2sd.sga.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/c2sd_polyvalence_rafale_2006.pdf
ZedroSAs stated in the opening post this thread is not meant to compare the Rafale’s MMI to that of other aircraft, but to get a better idea of how things are working on this aircraft, from visualisation to the actions it takes to achieve things.
I was just trying to clarify : am I wrong on Jackonicko side of the story ? Is he saying “Rafale’s MMI is poor according to the sources I have” or “Rafale’s MMI is worse than the EF’s one according to the source I’ve” ? Since it was the starting point of your thread, I think it would be interesting to clear this matter as well.
It certainly won’t be a fully fledged qualified judgement, but it could help to get a better understanding.
well, I kinda think we could only try to have a better understanding of it. Trying to judge or assess looks like way beyond our possibilities. Just look at the current “content” we have on the topic, it’s very few !
So how can we assess it?
We can try to assess the working procedures and display modes for various states of flight, from start up, over takeoff, navigation, AA and AG combat to landing and work out how individual systems are controlled. For example how an autopilot mode is selected or programmed, how much steps does it take to switch a radio channel or select a certain one to programme it. Or the radar which modes are available, what kind of options do they ofter and how are functions controlled, what is automated and how is it presented to a pilot.
We certainly don’t know all the details required, but we can collect what we have a take a stepped approach to cover different phases and situations.
As said earlier, we have really few data here. It could change, but then, as soon we would have some detailed data it would quickly be pointless : do we want to read, understand and then assess (meaning comparing it against reality and whatever expectations we could have) a 400 pages manual ?
The sole purpose of this topic could be to try to have a better picture in this field, which is already quite a noble endeavor, don’t get me wrong, but assessment looks like completely off and pointless.
About assessment, let’s provide some more input : I’m an IT guy, and I’m quite found of ergonomics. I do GUI construction/assessment. And I already see some flaws in your made up criterions :
how much steps does it take to switch a radio channel or select a certain one to programme it
=> the number of steps isn’t meaningful in itself. The whole idea of ergonomics is to reduce the “noise” of the application, being that an interface should be self explanatory. Even unconscious questions are a drag when considering UI. Small hesitations when reading a page, because there’s a button you didn’t expect and/or you don’t know exactly the outcome.
Then there are power users, like a pilot for his own plane’s MMI. It’s obviously different for him, as he can actually spend time learning the MMI. However, the more noise there’s the more automatic action he’ll have, reducing his ability to adapt easily to unexpected situations. Even worse, this guy’ll probably have a very hard time if you ask him about defaults of the UI, because he won’t notice anymore where he spends time and for which reasons. So where to draw the line between automatic behavior/self explaining ones ? And even saying it’s fine due to the automatic actions being fast, it may be wrong ; better thought out the application could provide a better to do the action required.
Back to number of steps, what matters really is the action flow and its logic/consistency. Quite often more steps are better than fewer to be able to use the application intuitively.
The big point I’m trying to do here is that UI assessment is really hard. And we’re so far from having the actual data, it looks pointless like hell. But knowing more is possible and welcome. Let’s look what’ll get.
About contributing data, I remember someones (TMor ?) provinding a link to a very big pdf explaining some work done on the topic, regarding the psychological aspects. If some one still has the link/pdf, it would be a good contribution.
ZedroSModified Cooper-Harper Scale.
Isn’t this about the aircraft flying behavior more than its MMI ?
On a broader picture, the big questions are :
1 – how to assess such a MMI ?
2 – Then, if we would have resolved 1, are we able to do such an assessment ?
some my quick picks here are :
1 – no clue at all, it looks like a whole topic of research in itself.
This MMI is done for pilots who are trained for years just to be able to start performing the job, then the same pilots train for quite some time on the actual plane they use, notably through simulators.
Then the job itself is really complex and ranging from long boring and yet demanding missions (when loitering over Afgha to drop a bomb every 4 hours) to life threatening ones. This MMI is also supposed to be used under high physical stress, which may lead to the brain having not enough blood to operate normally.
So, assessing such a MMI, well, my god, looks incredibly hard.
2 – let’s consider we might have a proper matrix with all the funky parameters to consider to do such an assessment. What would be the next step ?
Well, to be able to put two hands on the aircraft, at least through a simulator but one would also have to be able to check for it under high g…
EDIT : we would also need to be qualified enough to do this evaluation. Having an access to the required hardware (a plane) wouldn’t be enough : the amount of knowledge/know how to have to conduct such an assessment is probably quite huge !
In the end, making our own assessment looks like impossible. Even making guesses look quite hard, considering the number of parameters and use cases.
So, if we can’t make our own assessment, what to do ? Easy, rely on others ! Then you have to look at what you’ve. And basically we have two choices here :
– trusting a journalist with unnamed sources saying this specific MMI is poor, or, to be more precised, I think he claims this MMI is worse than the one on the EF.
– trusting some former/current (test) pilots comments about this MMI’s quality.
BTW, please notice these former guys weren’t into comparing the MMI.
Indeed, comparing 2 MMIs raises a whole new topic of assessment, ie being able not only to assess the Rafale and EF’s MMIs, but then as well to have a proper way of comparing them in order to have such a thing as “this one is better than this one”. This again raises a whole set of questions, because these planes are used in very different contexts, from their pilots’ training and history to their current use.
My personal pick here would be the following : regarding the “named” feedback we have, it looks like the Rafale’s MMI isn’t utter crap and should do the job.
Is this MMI better than the Typhoon’s one ? Well, I guess/think/hope they both provide a quantum leap from the good old days’ MMI (of a Mirage F1 or Harrier/Jaguar). I don’t know whether some current/former (test) pilots did comment on the EF’s one, but I would assume some did in a positive way as well. So these 2 MMIs should both play in the same ballpark, with nothing more being possible/sensible to say. These 2 MMIs are most likely strong points of their respective fighters against older planes.
Sign In
