Sim Icarus Boeing 777 Handmade Flight Deck

ShadowsMV writes "Three technology students finishing up their degrees at the DuPage Campus of DeVry University spent a term designing and building one of the most nifty flight simulators yet. Named the Sim Icarus Flight Deck, it accurately recreates the primary flight accessory controls of the Boeing 777, and interfaces directly with Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. They have tons of pictures and lists of everything you need! Previous flight decks featured on slashdot include An awesome homebuilt and wideview with 13 Monitors And 9 PCs."

Yay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the multitude of ignorant people complaining about how terrorists could use something like this to train more suicide bombers to fly planes. It's depressing that the supposed "dominant" state in the world today is so backward and fearful of technology at times. Stem cell research, nuclear power, et. al.

Re:Another Proof...

[Solder Fumes]

Legal drinking age is 18 in Canada, I think that says it all.

Shine You Guys

[stoolpigeon]

trash DeVry all you want. My paycheck for being a developer converts to currency just the same as any of you with 'proper' degrees.

Props to these guys-- that is a nice project. Those of you slamming our school-- you know what you can do. I think DeVry comes in right behind Microsoft on the 'acceptable bashing' scale here at the dot.

Re:Shine You Guys

[Lord_Dweomer]

I hope you know WHY we choose to bash the school. You see, aside from some of the most laughable ads in the history of advertising (which is the industry I'm in by the way, so I've seen a LOT of ads), they have an earned reputation of being a school for students who aren't the most successful, and who aren't "bright enough" to cut it at other schools.

It's a chain college. That and the fact that they have to advertise on tv drastically maims whatever credibility they might have as a school producing intelligent graduates.

So please, don't take the attacks as something against you personally, its all about the image your fine school has crafted for itself.

Re:Shine You Guys

[radish]

Still laughing? I'm 8 years out, working for a company every one of you would know, that gives me a new company car every year. Most of the people I work with have 10-25 years experience. Oh yea and last year I cleared $99,700.

What did your big name school that took you an additional 2 years (2 years you were not earning 40-60K and also not saving for retirement), that cost anywhere from 2-3 times a much make you?

Showing off about how much you earn is a bad idea. You'll always find out that you're not so well off after all...

Re:Shine You Guys

[Rew190]

Of all things, computer science can be done independently.

Only if you believe that computer science = programming.

A degree from DeVry will not get you CS theory. I know a DeVry grad who is great at programming and is certainly better at programming than others I work with... when it comes to theories and paradigms and general design, he's not so hot.

A proper degree in CS doesn't merely teach a few programming language. Not to say DeVry sucks, but if you want to directly compare degrees/programs as to which will give you a better understanding of the discipline, then yes, a proper CS degree from a university is going to utterly trounce one from DeVry.

Re:Their admin must be a complete noob.

[f0dder]

This article is a crackup. Makes a couple of good jabs at us Yanks.. but he seems to think (do google for Airbus and you see lots of uncomfortable references to it being a white elephant) that this thing may not be all roses.
White Elephant [freerepublic.com]

• Plainly this is idiotic. It would be much easier and cheaper to build them in France but politically this would be no good at all because the Airbus is intended to show how European co-operation can work. We do the wings and the engines, the French put everything together, the Germans finish everything off and the Spanish . . . actually, I don't know what the Spanish do, apart from gatecrash the launch party and lisp.
  
• That is presuming you got past the check-in. I guess you have all experienced the ludicrous queues that build up now. Well, imagine how long they are going to be when there are half a dozen A380s scheduled to depart within 15 minutes of one another. With seating for 550 on each one that is 3,300 people to be interrogated, 3,300 suitcases to be loaded, 3,300 pieces of hand luggage to be x-rayed and 3,300 pairs of shoes to be examined.
  
  Do you think that Virgin or Emirates will spend the money that they have saved on fuel by employing more check-in staff? I doubt it. As a result you will need to arrive at the terminal 3,300 hours before take-off. Then there is the flight itself to worry about.
  
• Yes, at the moment, despite much plastic and carbon fibre in its construction, the A380 is four tons overweight, but when the 747 was rolled out in the 1960s that was 50 tons overweight. So let's not get too worried. They could save four tons by simply removing one American passenger.
  
• Airbus made sure that its launch video featured on-board gyms and bars. There were big squidgy double beds and probably a polo lawn or two. But the reality is that airlines will fill the entire fuselage with seats they've nicked from a primary school to wedge the passengers in like veal.
  
  In other words, being on board the A380 will be exactly the same as being on board any other jet liner.
  
  
• This brings me to the final point. You see, the cruising speed of the A380 is Mach 0.85 (647mph), which is pretty good for something with the aerodynamic properties of a wheelie bin and engines that run on mineral water. But the 747 cruises at Mach 0.855 (651mph). This means that the 747 gets you there faster and means that you spend less time with your face wedged in an American's armpit.
  
  On that basis you can marvel at how Airbus has jumped through political hoops and climbed technical mountains to bring the world its shareholder friendly A380. But you are better off going in a Boeing.
  

Re:Their admin must be a complete noob.

[Richard_at_work]

I think I shall answer a few of your points.

• Its actually cheaper than you think to spread the build out over a number of countries - bare in mind that Airbus is not a public/government owned company, and therefor it cant just waste money in the name of cooperation. You get the parts built where its cheapest, and you ship them. This way you dont have to build one giant construction plant, you only have to build an assembly plant. Boeing also do this for the 777 and the 787 - prefabbed parts are made all over the world and shipped to Boeings assembly plants in the US.
• The current planned method of bookin, embarkation and debarkation for a A380 is to treat it as two seperate aircraft - one for the upper deck, one for the lower deck. That way you just have the equivilent of less than two 767s being booked in at the same time, which any airport currently handles. The same goes for baggage, security checks and anything else. And since airlines pay for checkin space based on amount of time used, I think you will find a lot of airlines employing more staff for A380 checkins.
• The A380 was five tonnes over target build weight at launch - but that wont matter as its not over the contract weight agreed with airlines, and that is the figure that people have been using to calculate efficiency etc. Airbus hope to lose this 5t for production aircraft by using more composites in the construction, and lighter cabin fixtures.
• All launch airlines plans for the aircraft keep the plane in a twin aisle 2-4-2 configuration for standard passengers, which gives each passenger as much as 20% more space in most cases, due to the width of the A380-800. There will also be bars and rest areas on most A380s, on the base deck below the lower deck - but you wont see the lavish interiors that the promotional shots show (I dont see this as an issue, the same had been done for the 747 as well).
• As for the speed arguement with 4mph between them, do the math. On a 12 hour flight, the 747 will only be 48miles ahead of the A380 if both went flat out without any delays. The A380 would make this distance up less than a minute. With the extra space you have on the A380, you should arrive at pretty much the same time as the 747 and you would have been more comfortable on the way.

All of that coupled with the fact that its quieter, more fuel efficient and greater comfortwise, I think that I would rather go in a A380, if its all the same with you :)

Re:DeVry University?

[scmason]

See, I got my BS in CS at the University of Montana. There were brilliant people there but most were idiots. Since then I have worked with people from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, CMU etc, and again, most were idiots.

I always liked to say that my education was not defined by where I went to school, but what I did while I was there. I think that it depends on the individual, and Devry is probably like MOST schools: the resources are there if you want to take advantage of them.

The employer's responsibility is to tell the difference between the productive ones and the lazy ones. At any successful organization, they dont care if your from Harvard or Devry if you do your job and are productive. Give me a Devry graduate who is nimble and personable over a Harvard grad who is less productive any day.

Also: don't say that the general student at Harvard is smarter than the general student at Devry or University of Montana, lazy or not. That is NOT true. The only thing that getting into Harvard means is that someone had some influence. For cripes sake, didn't Bush go there?

!