Bench racing ecms

[garfield at pilgrimhouse.com]

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:00:34 -0700, Scot Sealander
<Sealand at clarityconnect.com> wrote:

>> > Your idea of an engine simulator, at whatever level, is right smack 
>> > in the stateOdeArt of electronics. Is that SCARY, or what?
>
>This is from a previous post, but it is a long way from state of the art.
>I remember that someone from Linc, (the flight simulator company) was
>writing one on his own time about four years ago.  He left Linc as I 
>recall.  Not sure what happened to him, or his simulator.

I was the one that typed that "stateOdeArt" comment, and you missed my
meaning. Simulators ARE part of the "state of the art" in current
electronics design. Basically NOTHING these days is designed or built
without simulation confirming your ideas work. If I'd meant to say this
proposal was NEW or terribly innovative per se, I'da said it was
"leading edge" or even "bleeding edge".

"State of the art" just means that, it's part of the current art, not
passe'. The joke I was making was that this idea of simulating an engine
so you can test your electronics is a "giant leap into the PRESENT!"
methodology in common practice in electronics. Geez, you don't think I
would be silly enough to claim this was some kinda "new idea", do ya??

Actually, in electronics of course, what Bruce is getting together would
be more termed an engine "emulator", with "simulator" being used mostly
for something running completely INSIDE a computer, with NO actual real
hardware built up. But in aviation, simulator means EITHER "full motion
cockpit simulator" or "in computer visual simulator", with no place in
THAT vocabulary for the word "emulation" to make any distinctions.

Sometimes "state of the art" is mixed-metaFord for "latest and
greatest", but that's not how I meant it, nor is that it's original
meaning.

Picky picky, you say?; well, your comment that this idea "is a long way
from state of the art" also sounds a tad snotty too! So turnabout is
only fair play, in this case. B)

Gar