Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Builds Autonomous UAV
tshak writes "From Microsoft Research, 'Faculty and students at Cornell University have built an unmanned airplane with its own on-board, embedded control system. The large-scale model plane flies by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPS unit.' Not only does the plane run XP embedded, but the software is written in C# on the .NET Compact Framework. This is all powered by an 800mhz Crusoe processor with 1GB of total system storage."
Duck!
Phil
...to the term "crash"
I fear the onslaught of 1001 jokes about this plane crashing.
...but can it run Linux?
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
The Blue Sky of Death!
But really, this is very cool. UAV's are neat, and this is a cool use of mostly off-the shelf tech.
That was very original and fresh humor... thanks.
I wonder if they "picked" XP-Embedded because they were given a "grant" from Micosoft.
-- MarkusQ
I'd be interested to know how stable this thing is. Is there anyone here writing mission critical applications with .Net?
.... the Blue Skies of Death?
Subscribe for free to my show!
What has the operating system got to do with UAV? It's a bit of a risk using a proprietary OS you know nothing about, to run these devices. RealTime Linux incidentally, is used by Pratt & Whitney - they should know a thing or two about aircraft control.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
"only" 1GB? that's hardly impressive. Try fitting that in a few kb of ROM, like a real product would be, and i'd be impressed....
seriously, this is nothing but a joke. avionics software does NOT use 1GB of storage, nor does it run a PC-oriented OS (be it XP or linux).
This is quite silly from an embedded point of view. I really hope they weren't hoping to impress embedded developers with those specs.
--buddy
Instead of the usual set of jokes about blue screens of death from the blue skies, etc., can we get someone who knows about embedded XP systems to comment? How robust can this system be? Also, given that you can limit the number of inputs (e.g., the plane won't be browsing the web), can the limited number of apps it has to run help with stability, which tends to be an issue in desktop XP with many apps open?
Haven't seen the EULA for XP embedded but the consumer one says do not use for 'mission critical' applications. somehow an airplane seems kinda critical? sounds more like VxWorks or QNX would be appropriate.
"Hello, this is your pilot software speaking. We've encountered an unknown error as a result from an unknown error.
Please click OK to crash."
11 out of 14 posts so far have been modded down as Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, or Off Topic. Is this usual? In any case, how long until these little plains are fitted with a collision detection and avoidance system? Flying based on checkpoints is all fine and well if you're the only one in the sky, but othrewise its equivalent to a blind person without a dog or a cane walking down a street he knows very well.
Maybe in 20 years time they can get their heads around installing Linux. :P
...more RC airplanes flying through our windows.
Tim
Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Windows is not responding. We are going down!
It seems the plane's resources are being used up by a program called... "sol.exe"????
-nova20
Of course it's unmanned. Who in their right mind would want to fly on that!?
Yeah... new take on an old joke.
Writing code for an autonomous UAV to do nothing more than take off, fly around a bit, and land isn't really that hard. Anyone who's ever worked any flight simulation could do it without much help. If these Cornell kids have the support of a gigantic corporation with much in-house expertise on flight simulation, it's no surprise that they were able to make a plane fly simple, planned flights. Good for them, I guess, but it's really not that big a deal. Somebody must be posting this just to get the obligatory shots at MS started.
http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html
"This year the best performances were executed by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona (first year in the Competition). The Georgia Institute of Technology's autonomous helicopter demonstrated "Level 2 behavior" (finding a particular building from among many and then identifying all of the real openings in the building through which they could send in a sensor probe) during a series of three flights comprising more than an hour of flawless fully autonomous operation-- they landed only twice, once to adjust a camera and once to top off their fuel tank."
You can buy something like this for a couple thousand bucks... http://www.rctoys.com/predator.php
This guy beat them to it, sending an UAV over the Atlantic.
Teehee.
The large-scale model plane flies by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPS unit.' Not only does the plane run XP embedded, but the software is written in C# on the .NET Compact Framework.
Trust obviously Microsoft-sponsored engineers to find the wrong solution to the problem. Anything that flies benefits from light components. This "large-scale" model plane could have been smaller scale, cheaper, longer flying and, well, more impressive if it had taken onboard a small microcontroller with tailor-made programs.
Lugging around a system with an 800MHz Crusoe and 1G of storage just to accomodate megabytes of useless software (XP Embedded) is an expensive way of providing central heating to birds. This is not a rant against Microsoft and their "embedded" solution, more like a rant against overdesigning.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
all off the shelf stuff huh ? now imagine if this device carried a payload
And the difference between this and a cruise missile is what exactly?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
My first post (yay! - now modded 0 - boo!) was only intended to emphasise what the linked site acknowledges:
"Safety - An autonomous flight control system inherently removes human operator intervention from vehicle functionality. The capability of an aircraft of considerable mass, traveling at high velocity, to inflict damage to people or property is substantial. It was critical that the flight control system would include several modes of flight termination in case of emergency or flight control system failure."
Sure, there are non-military uses for UAVs - crop dusting, fire fighting, ground mapping, etc, but I'd be interested to know what proportion of the devices currently out there are in fact military.
Phil
Yeah but does it run linux?
/me ducks
Oh wait...
yes it could. in fact a 386 could do it. the data collection aspect would be harder. a smarter approach would have been 2 seperate systems. 1 navigation and the other for data collection. easily done with pc104 formfactor equipment.
hell and Embedded DOS could have done this. the hard part is landing and object recognition. that NEEDS a crapload of processing power and external sensors.
Small GPS controlled planes are old news. Check out the TAM project. Trans Atlantic Model. They flew a model plane across the Atlantic Ocean last year. Check it out here -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3145577.stm
Yes, they were given grant money from Microsoft, but that wasn't the only influence in their decisions. They've put long hard hours into the plane. XP Embedded does allow them to add functionality to the plane. A lot of companies have given then grants and sponsorships that have allowed them to build the plane. Don't forget this is Cornell here and they're not going to just rely on Microsoft to make the plane run. They also weren't attempting to make a "real" plane - this is still an UAV which isn't meant to have the power of a full aeronautical vehicle.
Unfortionatly one of their planes was destroyed in a fire at a hotel in Maryland while they went down to show off the plane. Luckily, their backup plane that is still being built was not destroyed.
Obviously the Microsoft Research link gives away the "why", but I really want to know why the overhead of .NET? Why not just compile it to "real" C++, build some machine code, and stick it on a chip? Doesn't that make more sense than .NET? Plus, I'd like to toss in my $.02 that 1GB is totally insane for an embedded system. The space shuttle doesn't need that much for its automated stuff.
stuff |
No, just wait for the posts lamenting microsoft bashing. Those will get +5, Insightful.
To test their flight control algorithms, the group used Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, running the algorithms for hundreds of hours. They used a SIG Rascal aircraft with a 110" wingspan. The aircraft is 75 ¾" long and weighs thirteen pounds.
Yeah, but how does that test much of anything? I mean, I'm sure they can get these planes to fly a loop or something, but how reliably. Could they do this for hundreds of hours in flight? What happens when the host OS crashes? The control system is not redundant, creating a single point of failure asides from the the engine. Its not like you can just flash the thing while it is in the air, ala Mars Odyssee. I know its just a college project, and some really bright students are behind this, but this just sounds more like a M$ Publicity stunt than anything. I'm sure without corporate funding they wouldn't have chosen XP and .NET first.
Its cool technology, but I don't think that we'll see these things become popular running on XP embedded. Could you imagine a car running on something like this?
Well, I wish them luck!zosX
zosxavius photography
I hope it doesn't crash. (pun intended)
Imagine it with passengers...."This is your pilot software speaking, please assume the appropriate position for a reboot."
Can I bum a sig?
One compact flash card holds the operating system in a protected write mode, while the other stores a real-time flight log - a 'black box' that can be examined to diagnose problems, even if the vehicle crashes.
:-D
This would be very useful to thousands of Windows users world-wide
Can it go through a stargate and feed back the information through an open wormhole?
all off the shelf stuff huh ? now imagine if this device carried a payload
Hello Sir. Yes you there, who just posted as AC. Look through the window: you see those 3 black vans with the engines running in the street? Ear the knock on your door? These are your new friends for the months to come...
-- Signed: John
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
You could always buy a Predator http://www.rctoys.com/predator.php and equip it with a GPS powered autopilot. Built-in wireless video camera and 1.5 hours of flight on one battery, yay!
They should upgrade ASAP to the embedded version of the Windows NT 6.0 "Skynet"
Oh wait... What's that sound outside my wind
NO CARRIER
The students modified the vehicle for unmanned flight by replacing the factory tail with a custom lifting tail, which moved the center of gravity further towards the rear of the plane.
Doesn't adding lift to the rear of an aircraft move the center of lift, which is different from the center of gravity ???
Also from the the story:
Understand, I am not.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
We can't completely automate air traffic control systems. We can't even upgrade air traffic control systems made decades ago because of the fear of software bugs.
So let's try to make plan that can fly by itself.
No thanks. I like my pilots well trained, well paid, happy & human.
Tell that to the FBI, asshat.
Haven't seen the EULA for XP embedded but the consumer one says do not use for 'mission critical' applications.
The EULA for XP Embedded says nothing of the sort.
Your rant sounds like the old "will never need more than 640k" line of years ago.
The limitations are not really applicable today. Increasing the amount of space will open up some interesting opportunities.
Too many in the embedded community act as if their view is the only view permitted and all others are idiots.
Seriously,this is impressive,to navigate a vehicle that moves pretty fast in relation to the processing of GPS information. My experience of GPS onboard mapping systems (albeit a few years ago) the GPS data essentially told you where you were, not where you are or where you are going. They must have refined the processing of data, or done some sort of extrapolation for the plane to make accurate adjustments to maintain direction, trim and prevent stalling.
Beyond academic exercise, what is the purpose of such a vehicle? Military, and they already have one of these. To me, this is like the nut in New Zealand who builds cruise missiles for fun and games. Sure there are lots of "wild" ideas, but in reality, most of these problems have been solved by existing technology (which in fact this is).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
AFAIK, all of them. Developing UAVs costs a lot of money (the UAVs in use now typically cost $1M or more), and the military is currently just about the only party willing to throw money at this. The military have one big incentive that commercial users don't: military aircraft are likely to get shot at.
The only exception I know of is NASA, their huge flying wing is a step towards 'persistent' UAVs (that can loiter over an area for a long time, which is what you want for surveillance missions).
Considering the way UAV's usually end up with hard points that are occupied with interesting things, I wonder if wireless is enabled.
There's other ways to do it, but you run where the $$ tells you to on projects like this.
Big deal... try something harder. ;-)
http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
for the first airborne trojan horse !
:-)
Now all it needs is WiFi, and it can mass infect
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Not to come over all gee-whiz and so on, but how relentlessly negative these posts are. The students deserve some congratulations for successfully completing an impressive piece of work. Maybe they didn't go the most efficient/difficult/brag-worthy route. So what? Everything they've learned will be useful, regardless of what hardware/software they end up using in the 'real' world. They probably had fun and have achieved something real, instead of just sitting back criticising.
Good point about the cruise missile though...
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
Don't the editors know better than to post this? I mean.. this story is just custom-made as a troll to Slashdot users. Are you going to get anything other than a bunch of "Crashing because Windows sucks" replies? Other than this one, that is.
type of hardware. Do they at least have a cool case mod? I'm really not quite sure what the point of this was?
Sig it.
Avionics software, GPS, and the OS are just the testbed, all pretty standard and could be swapped out for something more robust. The control software the decides where and how to conduct it's mission is the interesting part. If it can locate a particular house or vehicle, the conduct smart surveillance and return to the home base, who cares what the OS is?
Wouldn't it be better if they embeded a midget into the plane?
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers!
Seems to me some of this technology might be able to be put to good use for the DARPA Grand Challenge 2005, in which autonomous vehicles race across the U.S. desert, driven by their waypoints and obstacle avoidance systems. I'm not at all surprised Cornell is doing some of this autonomous vehicle research.
:) There's also tons of previous Slashdot coverage on the Grand Challenge, and there's a pre-2005 event coming up very soon for interested people, I know.
Last year, The Ohio State University's TerraMax and Carnegie Mellon's Red Team did very well at the DARPA Grand Challenge. Here's some good coverage on Science Blog. There was some other really good blog coverage that gave a play-by-play breakdown of how each autonomous vehicle did the day of the event and what kind of troubles it ran into, but I can't find that via the Googling right now.
In my day, when we wanted mobile computing power, we had to do it with a 6 Mhz Z80. I mean really, you DONT need a desktop computer for waypoint flying.
.net framework)
CPU Usage for UAV
XP Embedded - 35%
Waypoint system - 1%
Flight Control System - 2% (It's written in C# with
Seti@home client - 62%
What the heck is a 'sig'?
Well, the sky and the plane's screen will now be blue...
Apparently you didn't read the link. I shouldn't be surprised, this is slashdot. =P
Anyway, that was an interesting story posted on slashdot a loooong time ago. THe guy bought off-the-shelf (Internet) components online and used them to cheaply assemble an autonomous cruise missle in his garage to prove that such a thing is a legitimate threat potentially weilded by terrorists. Unfortunately, governments of the world largely ignore this threat, and New Zealand even decided that, although they considered what he was doing legal, it wasn't appropriate and effectively censored it.
blue sky of death!
First, the desktop with Windows, then the lands (they own a looot), then the consoles with Xbox, then the Tv with the Media Center PC... now.. like Xbox is not beating PS2, they came up with the idea of monopolizing the "a la Terminator" flying killing automated things.
I'm all forward it... mainly because I'm against war, and all it'd would take to stop an invasion would be to attack one of the millions of security flaws their embedded IE probably has... by the time they released the patch at http://planeupdate.microsoft.com, we would have already cracked the protection of the little things and we would be using them as toys.
But XP embedded is actually a very useful product. It is something that should be released as an option to run desktop systems, as it can be modularized and stripped of nearly all Microsoftiness (Messenger, IE, you name it). Just want the XP OS with full GUI, no frills? XP embedded fits the bill. We use it for a custom application here and it's just what the DOJ ordered.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
1 flash card is for the OS and app (in writeprotected mode), the other is for recording all the flight data (telemetry, video storage, air speed, commands, etc).
I probed it with OpenBSD-3.5 running in AthlonXP 2800+ with a lot of batteries and much fuel.
It works perfectly.
open4free ©
OMG ROFLMAO your joke is so creative and original.
Thats why....
UAV research has become more and more popular over the last 10-15 years. A couple of cool projects worth checking out:
MIT Autonomous Vehicle Formation Flying
Frontier Systems unmanned helicopter - sadly, not much info. Of course, they are a military contractor, so that's to be expected. The thing just looks cool, though.
UAV Forum - big listing of commercial UAV projects
Clippy: It looks like you are flying a plane, would you like some help?
----
Fewer parts & less to go wrong = hitting the right target more often.
I am probably one of the biggest anti-MS Linux biggots on the face of the planet, but I also have to run Windows for my job, and I also run it at home to play UT2003/2004 because quite frankly the game is slower than next Christmas on Linux. I've got an overclocked P4 2.4 Northwood running at 3.2GHz on air cooling only, that's been up continuously 24x7 since mid-March 2004 running Folding@Home all the time, plus I play UT on it and just leave the FAH service running in the background since it basically goes to sleep when something else is running. I've had *zero* operating system crashes, maybe 3 or 4 Unreal game crashes that never bring down the o/s, and I play UT every day for at minimum a couple hours (and my hands are just about crippled now to prove that :-) ). FAH has never errored out either nor has it ever had to toss out a work unit either. There are no signs of memory leaks either. It's been rock solid. Of course I have not patched the O/S with Windows Update either since then, but it's immune to attack from the Internet due to sitting behind a nazi-like secure Linux iptables firewall too.
Now that's only about 5 months of continuous uptime, but you gotta admit, that's pretty good for a Windows desktop box.
Didn't the fire occur because they overcharged their batteries in the room?
Anyway, they did build one, and congratulations to them. So did many others, in this student competition. The Washington Post wrote up a little article (PDF) (HTML), too.
Note that I link to the pdf hosted on msstate.edu because that's where I go to school. Our plane ran Slackware.
A lot of people don't seem to like that they've done it with what is effectively a small desktop machine.
Listen, it's all very well complaining that they didn't do the whole thing with $50 and a PIC, but the advantage of doing it with something like XPE is that it's a lot easier to scale up to something grander.
Wanna get waypoints out of Autoroute? Sure - no problem.
Need to change your GPS unit to a different USB model? Again. No problem.
Want to add some basic computer vision stuff to it getting input from a USB webcam? Easy!
Now, if you're trying to make an autopilot that weighs 45g and attaches to a foam parkflyer, you're going to have to use something smaller and simpler. However, with a larger plane you might as well stick with something bigger that leaves you with more options.
loOK OUT BELOWWWwwwwwwwwwwww............!
I've invented time travel! At least, it appears I've discovered a way to post something that is redundant with posts that came after it. I don't know how I did it, but that's the only way I could have gotten moderated "redundant" under the circumstances (I mean, surely the moderators couldn't have made a mistake! Get real). So I must have done something to the spacetime thingy-whatzit.
Unless maybe the spacetime thingy-whatzit is doing something to me...
-- MarkusQ
well it does..
Why does it run WinXP? Easy!
"All it has to do" (note I put it in quotes) is change a handful of control surfaces to put its GPS coordinates back on the desired flight path. This is something that is even simpler than a old-fashioned mechanical autopilot had to do using some gearboxes and hydraulics (Those generally did inertial navigation, and had to do more work because GPS wasn't available half a century ago...).
Admittedly old autopilots did little more than fly in straight lines, but the problem isn't all that much different.
Interesting project, but can anyone comment on this?
A control system really needs to be hard real-time. Is XPE hard realtime? Also, is C#? If it is, how does it deal with garbage collection under these constraints?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You know, I always thought UAV stood for "Urban Assault Vehicle." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/ Someone needs to talk to these guys and get them to change their acronym...we're talking 1981 here and a MUCH better concept. ;-)
Oh, I miss my 1980 Chevy Van we referred to as the UAV. Eight miles to the gallon and that great sliding door for those A-team assaults.
...brought to you by Microsoft and Cornell.
Well, I didn't see that one coming. Those ivory tower eggheads have screwed us again. Or is it "doomed us all"?
Those bloated MS APIs strike again.
They should have used linux.
...do NOT attempt to enable wi-fi in this thing. The last thing we need is a Microsoft-powered SKYNET.
*ducks*
That green slime had it coming.
Nuff Said.
Now, let me review this:
.....
.NET kitchen
In WWII, about 60 years ago when a relay ground computer existed,
The Army flew remote controlled planes in WWII using a basic analog
circuit (like most model planes today) (maybe 5 tubes ?)
So today, the computer is about 10,000,000,000 more powerful, and a research grant was given to
our best college students to make a remote
controlled plane. Now renamed remote controlled
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Using one of the better
computers and the most uptodate complex
software...
Wait !!! I see !! The plane simply knows
where it is...
well, whooop teee doooooo
Somehow, I don't see this as a great leap of
civilization....
Or the educational system.
Or technology.
Or the grant system.
Or proof of concept of a remote control plane
flying around.
Or the news media pushing press releases..
Maybe I should apply for a grant to develop
a 2.4 Ghz 512 Meg ram C#, VS,
countertop ice cream maker.
in order to take off , they had to turn the engine off, then adjust the ailerons. then switch the engine on again.
Then they to adjust the flaps - adjust flaps, turn off engine, restart engine.
When it comes into land, they had to extend the landing gear, turn the engine off and start it up again, but unfortunately, the latest variant of MyDoom (version 15.E for flying XP things) had gotten into it, so the plane flew off to Russia.
Uphill! Both ways! In the snow!
Best Slashdot Co
Ahem...didn't you hear Hawking a few weeks back?
StarGate. As in, the series from SciFi. I couldn't tell if you were being cheeky or not, so I'll just go ahead and explain it. They launch a UAV through the StarGate, and use it to scout about on the other side. (A different planet)
It should also be noted that the StarGate itself is powered by Windows XP Embedded. So I'm still on topic here.
--LordPixie
i can only think of micorsoft patenting the 'Left Seat', and many more to come.
For some reason, this story about an unmanned aerial vehicle running on Windows XP makes me think of it being infected with a virus called SkyNet and turning into an Aerial Hunter-Killer. (from the Terminator series)
But why is the rum gone?
My school(Virginia Commonwealth University) also did this, and actually won the competition these were built for, the second AUVSI student competition./ default.htm/ uav.html
http://auvsi-seafarer.org/seafarers
http://www.egr.vcu.edu/announcements
As far as I know, no Microsoft products were used on the plane, but I can't find too many details at the moment. The guy I know who worked on the project only knew C and C++, though from my understanding he did mostly the EE stuff, not as much programming....
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
...fly the friendly skies. uMMmm wwhoAAA Hah ha!
Faculty and students at Cornell University have built an unmanned airplane with its own on-board, embedded control system.
Wow! Raytheon, Grumman, and others have only been doing this operationally for 10 years. Is this what $56G in cash buys Micro$oft? Good thing they are paying out a big dividend at the end of the year. It should put an end to pointless projects like this. As a Cornell graduate I am embarrassed for my alma mater.
an ill wind that blows no good
So does VCU, but from scratch and without off-the-shelf components. Plus they win the competition.
Disclaimer: I'm a VCU EE student, but not associated with this project.
`which fortune`
"only" 1GB? that's hardly impressive. Try fitting that in a few kb of ROM, like a real product would be, and i'd be impressed....
I'll take my flight-control software with an exception handling system, thanks.
What's more interesting is this is a good proof of concept that anyone with a few thousand bucks and not even a college degree can put together an autonomous airplane with commodity parts.
I think people who can get C4 can come up with the money for a gig of RAM. This kind of design can scale pretty easily, therefore so can the lifting capacity.
If one of these was launched from Hoboken could it be shot down over the Hudson River? Are they even considering this problem? If all the vans and trucks are being stopped in the Holland Tunnel it doesn't make sense to use the Holland Tunnel.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The system runs off two 512 MB compact flash cards, which provides a storage system with no moving parts able to withstand up to 10,000 Gs.
...
WTH? Surely at 10,000 Gs the copper strips itself off the printed circuit boards
I didn't see any mention of the .NET Compact Framework in the linked article, just C#. I suspect this is running on the standard .NET runtime.
The Compact Framework is a .NET runtime targeted at Windows CE running on top of the processors you find in PocketPCs (generally ARM), and ships with a class library that's rather stripped down from what you get with the full desktop runtime. Windows CE and Windows XP Embedded are, btw, different operating systems, although CE implements a large subset of Win32, and there's no doubt a lot of copy-and-paste from the XP userland libraries into CE.
No plane commanded by a pilot has a computer that controls it, and no pilot would want that.
Most of the beef in avionics is display. The GPS probably has the most amount of ram and that's for maps, not computing power. The other stuff is telemetry for nagivation, you're talking bytes of data if even that depending on the avionics.
Fuel management? Seriously, that goverened by a calculator with less than 1k of ram.
The mechanics of flight haven't changed since we started flying with the latest advancement being the way the stealth plane fly.
You don't need software to fly autopilot.
You need fuel, an aneroid wafer device capable of determing altitude, a compass, and the method of tying it all together. (which has been around way before Microsoft)
Yeah, it's cool that a plane is autonomous but it's really not. Knowing the MS Marketing machine, they'll sell the idea that way.
The reality is that flying from point A to point B automatically is just as easy as this:
1. Enter starting airport (automatically determined by current GPS)
2. Enter destination airport
3. Go
4. The plane already knows the direction of the runway because of it's compass heading so it takes off and abides by the rules in the Airport Facility Directory that is updated every 56 days.
5. Knowing 4, is arrives and folows the same protocol for landing getting wind from ATIS, it determines the runway in use and uses ILS.
6. Flaps out, power back to idle, land.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
Oh, wait, Windows can't do Beowulf clusters.
Never mind.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
with all the issues with open source software, i have a lot more faith MS software professionals doing this than students working part time on linux.
It's comforting that safety critical code is small. It is possible (not just easier, possible) to test small chunks of code - just think how the complexity increases with code length. We're not talking about GUI style testing here, where you run it for a couple of sessions and consider that tested if it doesn't fall over. 1GB is ridiculous.
Here's the link
Blue Sky of Death, anyone?
I think what's really important here is not that it was running XP embedded, but what incentive universities are getting to use Microsoft products.
Linux will never have the grand scale ability to hand out shiny plaques/trophies/awards to entrepreneuring endeavors in the technology field, or even be able to give valid street credit to the teams that would happen to use Linux with their project.
I think it's time a fund was set up for just that...
Thank you,
Xeon
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
I was just about to say the exact same thing. The first day of electrical engineering they told us that a good engineer is a lazy engineer. Pure research is completely different than engineering - engineering is focused on solutions to problems, whereas research sees if something is possible. Engineers have to be economical - conserving money, time, and resources. It is far more economical to take off the shelf components, both money and timewise. Sure they pay a little with resources probably, but they made the tradeoff for legitamate reasons. Engineers should have taken some economics courses in college. They should work with their feet firmly on the ground, otherwise there will be no place for them in today's working environment.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Who modded this troll insightful?
The hard problems are
which this system won't do.
This is just another hodge-podge of off-the-shelf components hobbled together. Nothing new here, really.
Microsoft builds cheap cruise missile.
All of these issues are interconnected and go *WAY* beyond the technical.
Not really, I use Linux and for me it is the logical choice for my only OS ahead of WinX. I am very glad that Linux can now do all it did before plus haswhat XP etc have -i.e GUI (for the typical user)... My bone is with Mandrake and other Distros, effectivel ripping people off for club membership etc. This is bs. I support Linux and will help out in what way I can but I won't go down this root. The only one of the main distros that is truly free is Fedora. If I had to pay, I'd pay for SuSE rathwer than Mandrake. Mandrake is too expensive. It really annoys me as I wanted to keep using Mandrake now I am beginning to loathe it. I have just got a brand new machine and I am putting Slackware on it. I may change to Fedora, but I will not use Mandrake anymore.
Anyway, my point is that we need to be critical of Linux too. No Os is beyond the technical, because thats what they're meant to be - technical. You are right to deffend against the other post though. He probably IS working for Microsoft!!! ; )
After reading the article, and the meta article (MS Awards Acad. Grants), this seems to largely be a pat on the back of MS CE by MS, albeit by proxy via Cornell. Nice that MS "rewards" innovation, a little suspect that they offer award for innovation using MS technology. It's their right, but this smells like PR, not news.
(Case in point, how is this more interesting than drones, which also can fly autonomously?)
If the story had been about the project, and had not dwelled on the the fact that microsoft technologies were used then that might have been called for ... but then it would have never been on slashodot anyway. This was a microsoft PR fluff piece, about research bought and payed for by microsoft.
On a technical level this story isnt really slashdot worthy, it is however microsoft bashworthy (the threshold is a little lower).
It's been done. It's even been done with a UAV helicopter, which is a great deal harder to do (though the gains in usability are exceptional).
Specifically, there is a UAV competition held by AUVS every year, and people do a lot of amazing stuff there.
What's interesting about this particular vehicle is that it uses XP-embedded over another operating system. Otherwise, it's like all the rest.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Of the four reasons you listed explaining why you "think XP + .NET is a great choice instead of using a simple microcontroller with assembler code", only one is an actual reason. It's true, windows device drivers are really commonplace, to the point that using off-the-shelf hardware with any other OS can be a pain. *note* The other three reasons you listed are in no way related to XP and/or .NET, let alone are they explanations regarding their superiority. As an electrical engineering and computer science student who has been following along with the Open Automation Project on sourceforge, I assure you that Microsoft Windows is in no way a great choice of platform for a project like this *UNLESS* it's Microsoft that's making the project possible through funding.
Just wait until you see the Slashdot article about the Linux-based surface to air missile. Sure, the students can fly that XP plane, but let's see them try and evade a hydrogen peroxide powered rocket closing in at 500+ mph.
Ah...you don't like my signature, is that it?
Or maybe you disagreed with the moderator guidelines?
Or you don't think "funny" is a meaningful concept?
-- MarkusQ
Osama bin Laden buys $50 million stake in Microsoft.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
First I read "Faculty and students at Cornell University have built an unmanned airplane with its own on-board, embedded control system. The large-scale model plane flies by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPS unit...the plane run[s] XP embedded"
And then I read "Symantec and The Register are reporting that the first Windows CE trojan horse, known as Brador...this will most likely be used to make new botnets, and it leads me to wonder: will we soon need firewalls for Windows Embedded?"
And I'm like.. First UAV running Windows Embedded.. first trojan for Windows Embedded... woah shi, SKYNET!?!?!
Yes yes, I know its a CE trojan but still, a man can joke can't he?
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
The large-scale model plane flies by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPS unit
That was supposed to read:
The large-scale model plane crashes by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPF unit (the Windows machine)
Sorry for the confusion.
Look ma - XP in embedded mission critical system.
Look ma - XP steering the plane
Look ma - XP diving the plane
Look ma - the plane is burning
yes ma - you told me so
Good information! Frankly, I could give diddly what OS is actually doing it and am interested in how it works and what hurdles you encountered! Can you talk some about the video recognition? From the article it sounded as if the plane had to "recognize" objects on the ground - yes? The article also stated that there was a fire, can you give any details? Bummer that you couldn't compete! How much payload capacity was left on the plane? CPU capacity? In other words could you task it to do other things or do something arguably more useful with it? Take pics of things perhaps? Can the plane avoid things in it's path like trees and does it take into account altitude? Ergo - is it "thinking" in two dimensions and flying at a static height?
Do you guys have a WEB site someplace detailing the project?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
but personally I would have used something a little bit more realtime that uses somewhat less power.
For those interested in UAVs, there is a lil' specs library/gallery of them at http://www.uavforum.com
If they build a second one they could make them do some cool aerobatics.
is as stupid as the rest of the United States in their tolerance of a "President" as dumb as the electorate.
They deserve him.
While walking to class one day at Cornell I saw a fellow pulling a quarter-scale airplane (about the size of a small trailer) across a parking lot towards one of the ancient 1800's buildings there. He was pulling it by the tail like a sort of baby elephant. My curiosity level went through the roof of course and I walked with him and introduced myself. Turns out he was an entomologist (bug scientist). The plane had a cool net on the top to catch bugs! He would fly it above crops (like corn or whatever) at night with lights on the plane, and throw a switch on the controller to raise a net above the plane (roughly over the center of gravity - over the wing). The net would take a sample of bugs that he would study later. This allowed him to study crop entomology really well. He took me up to his workshop that resembled a science lab coupled with an airplane hangar, all in a gothic ancient building. Good god, it was so cool.
I was just blown away by the incredible intelligence, positive attitude and intellectual curiosity of the students, profs and researchers at Cornell. I was a pretty jaded guy before I went to Cornell, but the spirit of the people on that hill over lake Cayuga both humbled and inspired me. I'll remember that place and those people forever.
Tomorrows headline: Script Kiddies launch a DDOS by flying large numbers of 0wn3d autonomous planes into SCO headquarters.
all i can say is i hope when eXtra Plonkey crashes it falls on me then i can have the greatest pleasure in making so much money out of M$ Corp they cant afford to continue trading ..
..
.
Loverley thought
Pete
http://auvsi-seafarer.org/seafarers/default.htm
Many schools where in attendence, including my school, Univ Texas-Arlington. Unfortunately, I do not have a listing of the other schools in the competition, and the AUVSI website is a bit lacking.
If youa are interested in one of the other schools in the compeition, here is the link to our UAV. Unfortunately, we had a little "accident" keeping us from flying on the day of the competition, though we still placed 3rd. http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/reyes/AVL/
The .NET framework allows programmers to do more in less time. While it may be a Microsoft technology, it is certainly quite capable.
XP is also fairly stable. Almost 2 years running now, no crashes, no glitches, no BS.
This article doesn't surprise me. In fact, I am now going to show this to all my linux-high friends. I like linux too, don't get me wrong. The windows-bashing won't end here, I believe, but this achievement proves what can be done. The fact that they chose Windows over an open-source platform says alot by itself.
When Cornell got funding from MS to build a Beowulf cluster with NT (talk about a "cluster f***"), the project head at Cornell became quite the shill for his sponsors. Every time I've heard him talk, he talks about how great Windows is and how Linux sucks. Once, when someone in the audience asked him why they didn't use Linux, he didn't just come out and say because MS was a sponsor, which would've been a legitimate answer. (Nothing wrong with sticking to the products of the people footing the bill.) Instead, he made some wisecrack like "we don't want to spend 2 hours a day recompiling our kernel."
Every other speaker I've heard who talks about clusters and compares OSes says the choice of OS isn't much of an issue (beyond costs) because most of the time, people just launch MPI jobs from a head node and never log on to the cluster nodes in the first place. So it generally comes down to the performance of the MPI library.
So yes, people who've experienced previous Cornell PR might conclude that this will be yet another shilling opportunity, and that they will be sure to mention that it runs XP in every other sentence.
I don't mean to imply that because one guy from Cornell's a shill, that everyone else will be. But I do notice that one of them is already claiming they "couldn't have written the software without XP Embedded." The argument seems to be because they could test it by running the code much faster on regular desktops. But you could do the same thing with a Linux-based approach.
...with the exception of the "write the serial modem code" argument, which would be reasonable if the code hadn't already been written for Linux (including emulators), none of your arguments hold water.
You can write and run your software on an ordinary Linux desktop, without even the need for a simulator module for the most part. The same Linux which runs your desktop can also run your 'plane, and for a considerably smaller performance and resource hit than XP (although in real life you'd go to the trouble of having a highly modular kernel and not load very much for the instance on the 'plane).
I have no idea why you'd bother with Atmel chips.
Linux runs natively on the Crusoe, another performance gain.
So you used MS-FS for testing algorithms? Then FlightGear would have given you even more control and oversight over what you were testing.
Reading between the lines, you didn't even look.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing