Curtis L. Olson wrote: > But to your other point, I agree that we should start looking into > failure modes. This is one big un-addressed issue. I could make up a > list of interesting failure modes if anyone was interested.
This could actually be done with minimal C++ code. Picture a "failure manager" that walks a property tree under "/failures". For each child, it reads a "mtbf-sec" property and sets the "working" boolean with a random probability that corresponds to the failure rate. This is maybe a few tens of lines of C++. So each failure system then sets something like "/failures/static-pressure/mtbf" to 100000 in an initialization file. And the relevant system (the ASI and altimeter, in this case) just checks the value of "/failures/static-pressure/working". Most of this can be done using the existing property conditions as-is. A few failure modes (engine failures, maybe) might require FDM intervention, but most are just of the "turn off the gadget" form. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
