Most of my experience is with the A380, and the majority of the structure is different from the first few aircraft. Right from the beginning, the 7th aircraft (MSN007) was to be the entry into service aircraft, and the first few aircraft were the test aircraft (some eventually sold to customers after modification). You do not make them in a one-off fashion, because you're also prototyping your production process, but the first aircraft is pretty much a prototype. While the first one is being built and tested, engineers refine loads and the design for later models. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but to me that's a reasonable amount of early integration and prototyping given the scale of the product.
AFAIK this is standard across the aerospace industry, so roughly the same thing would have happened to the 787. However I did notice during the 787's development that Boeing was introducing a bunch of new technology AND pushing a tight schedule for testing testing/prototyping phase, which I immediately thought was rather optimistic. After their public slagging of the A380 when it had problems, I was looking forward to sitting down with the pop-corn when it's the 787's turn. And here we are:D
You tell 'em. Just annotate the drawings with the correct GDT and she'll be right.
Bollocks. I'm sure that's the case when machining a pin to fit in a bush, but it's bit more more complicated when making large assemblies work together when everything is bendy.
55 deputies holed up in the jail. Yep, that's what the fight against the government is going to look like. Do you honestly think that situation will ever be repeated? It looks pretty optimistic from here.
What's especially funny is that you can get banned on the Battlefield 3 forums for mild swearing, but the game itself has choice lines shouted out like "fuck, I'm getting my shit pushed in here!".
That's fine and I agree, but then you did that damn rose tinted thing that older people like to indulge in. I don't believe that kids are stupid these days, and they weren't geniuses back in your's. OK, modern technology has allowed SMS speak to develop, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There have been plenty of stupid people since time immemorial, but these days the amusing tales of stupidity have more visibility than ever before.
Current panasonic plasmas really suffer from image retention. Look up "cnet unintentional image retention test". When I went to view them in a store they had elements of the looping video burned in (one scene was an ad with bright red graphical elements that stayed still for maybe 10 seconds, it left slight green patches on the rest of the material). Viewers are reporting that even leaving the netflix pause icon on the screen for a minute is sufficient to leave a slowly fading mark, let alone a score board during a game.
I was going to buy one, but after seeing how easily they get very long lasting image retention / burn in, and seeing the horrible power/brightness limiting on white scenes, I gave up and got an LCD.
That's right, we're all out to get you, because you are the light that's fighting the good fight, and we can't have that.
Would you like a tin foil hat? How about a soap box? Nah, you seem to be fine without one (you do realise your Xubuntu monologue was irrelevant to everything right?).
What kind of primitive games are you playing? My combo of Q6600 @ 3.0 and 6950 is struggling to put out 1920x1200 at high settings. In BF3 and X-plane the Q6600 is actually the most limiting factor. I hope you're not basing this on tux racer and glxgears.
I have NFI what you're talking about in regards to the SSD boosting game performance. Yeah, the fast boots and application loads are nice, but in BF3 it just means I spend more time waiting for the match countdown to finish. After that it isn't worth a damn.
Every component is "important", but some are more important that others.
As far as I can tell, a browser in the background is almost exclusively a matter of RAM, not processing power. And you can't just tack on cores to do other intensive work while gaming; they will use memory bandwidth and screw with things in other ways that are beyond me.
FWIW, the two demanding apps I'm using at the moment are Battlefield 3 and X-plane, and both are more CPU limited than GPU. My CPU is a Q6600 overclocked to 3.0 GHz and GPU a Radeon 6950.
I'm really impressed with how BF3 uses 4 cores; mine are all simultaneously pinned at at least 90%.
It's a shame that I've come home after drinking and started replying on/., because I've just realised that I'm only about 5% disagreeing with you, but now it would be a waste of time to just throw this post away LOL.
I doubt anything will be as dramatic as you're making it out to be, despite me enjoying Boeing's struggle a little. Boeing's PR was rather childish and unprofessional when the A380 was experiencing delays and problems, so they deserve this. If it weren't for that I'd feel sorry for them.
I've never heard of any of my friends (professional office jobs) working in a place that does drug tests, and I haven't worked in any either (aeronautical engineer BTW). Mind you, I live in Australia.
You can hardly claim that the A380 has a carbon wing. Some ribs are carbon and it's the aluminium rib feet that join them to the wing that cracked. The important ribs, spars and skins are aluminium.
Huh? There are 787 (Dreamliner) services between Aus and US? Nope. You're thinking of the A380 or 777. The 787 only started flying passengers in Oct 2012 with a Japanese airline (ANA).
I don't think you realise how much effort that is. For at least the A380, all the load cases for stress calculations are repeated and recalculated for the other engine type. So if you were to redo independently, you'd probably have to redo all the stress analysis.
If you're not sure, avoid excess detail: it's av-tur / Jet A (roughly kerosene), not av-gas (roughly car gas). Both can just be called fuel.
Also dumping fuel doesn't pour it over the wings, there are nozzles on the trailing edge of the wing for that purpose. No need for extra dramatisation.
Surviving is about as amazing as the F-111 surviving every time it did a dump and burn:/
Can you tell that I don't like exaggerated stories?
Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about; drop it.
I've been doing aircraft stress analysis on Airbus aircraft for 7 years (this includes reading documents that elaborate what failure loads and conditions you have to design for) and have never seen any sign of failure modes being invented automatically. Computers just do all the tedious stuff.
The backlash against the Ai-Li might be a mixed blessing; the material is still used a bit in the current design and the billet supplier is struggling with meeting porosity limits in the billets (the cast and rolled blocks that the parts are machined from). The porosity significantly affects fatigue life, so the parts get beefed up to reduce stress levels, which increases weight.
I'm glad you said "or", because I certainly don't have a poor command of English. But even though I'll admit to a slightly lacking imagination, I think you're oversimplifying and your assertion hasn't been arrived at logically.
It's not your business any more than bastardising a computer communications protocol is.
I am glad that the "troll" posted, because I'm sure I've misused a question mark at some point and I don't want to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of my experience is with the A380, and the majority of the structure is different from the first few aircraft. Right from the beginning, the 7th aircraft (MSN007) was to be the entry into service aircraft, and the first few aircraft were the test aircraft (some eventually sold to customers after modification). You do not make them in a one-off fashion, because you're also prototyping your production process, but the first aircraft is pretty much a prototype. While the first one is being built and tested, engineers refine loads and the design for later models. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but to me that's a reasonable amount of early integration and prototyping given the scale of the product.
:D
AFAIK this is standard across the aerospace industry, so roughly the same thing would have happened to the 787. However I did notice during the 787's development that Boeing was introducing a bunch of new technology AND pushing a tight schedule for testing testing/prototyping phase, which I immediately thought was rather optimistic. After their public slagging of the A380 when it had problems, I was looking forward to sitting down with the pop-corn when it's the 787's turn. And here we are
Ironically, Boeing did release early when they showed to the public a plane assembled with temporary fasteners. I don't think it did much good :D
You tell 'em. Just annotate the drawings with the correct GDT and she'll be right.
Bollocks. I'm sure that's the case when machining a pin to fit in a bush, but it's bit more more complicated when making large assemblies work together when everything is bendy.
55 deputies holed up in the jail. Yep, that's what the fight against the government is going to look like. Do you honestly think that situation will ever be repeated? It looks pretty optimistic from here.
What's especially funny is that you can get banned on the Battlefield 3 forums for mild swearing, but the game itself has choice lines shouted out like "fuck, I'm getting my shit pushed in here!".
That's fine and I agree, but then you did that damn rose tinted thing that older people like to indulge in. I don't believe that kids are stupid these days, and they weren't geniuses back in your's. OK, modern technology has allowed SMS speak to develop, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There have been plenty of stupid people since time immemorial, but these days the amusing tales of stupidity have more visibility than ever before.
What an idiotic argument. As if you are representative of everyone in your generation, and the currently struggling kids are representative of theirs.
Current panasonic plasmas really suffer from image retention. Look up "cnet unintentional image retention test". When I went to view them in a store they had elements of the looping video burned in (one scene was an ad with bright red graphical elements that stayed still for maybe 10 seconds, it left slight green patches on the rest of the material). Viewers are reporting that even leaving the netflix pause icon on the screen for a minute is sufficient to leave a slowly fading mark, let alone a score board during a game.
I was going to buy one, but after seeing how easily they get very long lasting image retention / burn in, and seeing the horrible power/brightness limiting on white scenes, I gave up and got an LCD.
That's right, we're all out to get you, because you are the light that's fighting the good fight, and we can't have that.
Would you like a tin foil hat? How about a soap box? Nah, you seem to be fine without one (you do realise your Xubuntu monologue was irrelevant to everything right?).
What kind of primitive games are you playing? My combo of Q6600 @ 3.0 and 6950 is struggling to put out 1920x1200 at high settings. In BF3 and X-plane the Q6600 is actually the most limiting factor. I hope you're not basing this on tux racer and glxgears.
I have NFI what you're talking about in regards to the SSD boosting game performance. Yeah, the fast boots and application loads are nice, but in BF3 it just means I spend more time waiting for the match countdown to finish. After that it isn't worth a damn.
Every component is "important", but some are more important that others.
As far as I can tell, a browser in the background is almost exclusively a matter of RAM, not processing power. And you can't just tack on cores to do other intensive work while gaming; they will use memory bandwidth and screw with things in other ways that are beyond me. FWIW, the two demanding apps I'm using at the moment are Battlefield 3 and X-plane, and both are more CPU limited than GPU. My CPU is a Q6600 overclocked to 3.0 GHz and GPU a Radeon 6950.
/., because I've just realised that I'm only about 5% disagreeing with you, but now it would be a waste of time to just throw this post away LOL.
I'm really impressed with how BF3 uses 4 cores; mine are all simultaneously pinned at at least 90%.
It's a shame that I've come home after drinking and started replying on
Did that feel good you knob head? Did you RTFA, which is written by the BBC and also says UK? Northern Ireland is part of the UK BTW.
I doubt anything will be as dramatic as you're making it out to be, despite me enjoying Boeing's struggle a little. Boeing's PR was rather childish and unprofessional when the A380 was experiencing delays and problems, so they deserve this. If it weren't for that I'd feel sorry for them.
I've never heard of any of my friends (professional office jobs) working in a place that does drug tests, and I haven't worked in any either (aeronautical engineer BTW). Mind you, I live in Australia.
You can hardly claim that the A380 has a carbon wing. Some ribs are carbon and it's the aluminium rib feet that join them to the wing that cracked. The important ribs, spars and skins are aluminium.
Huh? There are 787 (Dreamliner) services between Aus and US? Nope. You're thinking of the A380 or 777. The 787 only started flying passengers in Oct 2012 with a Japanese airline (ANA).
Either you are completely wrong, or the offset counterbore in the oil pipe has something to do with a mechanic. Please elaborate.
I don't think you realise how much effort that is. For at least the A380, all the load cases for stress calculations are repeated and recalculated for the other engine type. So if you were to redo independently, you'd probably have to redo all the stress analysis.
If you're not sure, avoid excess detail: it's av-tur / Jet A (roughly kerosene), not av-gas (roughly car gas). Both can just be called fuel. :/
Also dumping fuel doesn't pour it over the wings, there are nozzles on the trailing edge of the wing for that purpose. No need for extra dramatisation.
Surviving is about as amazing as the F-111 surviving every time it did a dump and burn
Can you tell that I don't like exaggerated stories?
Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about; drop it. I've been doing aircraft stress analysis on Airbus aircraft for 7 years (this includes reading documents that elaborate what failure loads and conditions you have to design for) and have never seen any sign of failure modes being invented automatically. Computers just do all the tedious stuff.
The backlash against the Ai-Li might be a mixed blessing; the material is still used a bit in the current design and the billet supplier is struggling with meeting porosity limits in the billets (the cast and rolled blocks that the parts are machined from). The porosity significantly affects fatigue life, so the parts get beefed up to reduce stress levels, which increases weight.
Google, like most people do (I'm not making that up).
I'm glad you said "or", because I certainly don't have a poor command of English. But even though I'll admit to a slightly lacking imagination, I think you're oversimplifying and your assertion hasn't been arrived at logically.
It's not your business any more than bastardising a computer communications protocol is. I am glad that the "troll" posted, because I'm sure I've misused a question mark at some point and I don't want to do that.