Is Your Ford More Technically Complex than a F-22 Raptor

[aussiblue]

See http://news.discovery.com/tech/toyot...ware-code.html

The avionics system in the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force frontline jet fighter, consists of about 1.7 million lines of software code. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems. And Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to be delivered to customers in 2010, requires about 6.5 million lines of software code to operate its avionics and onboard support systems.

These are impressive amounts of software, yet if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, ”it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code,” says Manfred Broy, a professor of informatics at Technical University, Munich, and a leading expert on software in cars. All that software executes on 70 to 100 microprocessor-based electronic control units (ECUs) networked throughout the body of your car.

As Much Software Code as an Airbus


Alfred Katzenbach, the director of information technology management at Daimler, has reportedly said that the radio and navigation system in the current S-class Mercedes-Benz requires over 20 million lines of code alone and that the car contains nearly as many ECUs as the new Airbus A380 (excluding the plane’s in-flight entertainment system). Software in cars is only going to grow in both amount and complexity. Late last year, the business research firm Frost and Sullivan estimated that cars will require 200 million to 300 million lines of software code in the near future.

Even low-end cars now have 30 to 50 ECUs embedded in the body, doors, dash, roof, trunk, seats and just about anywhere else the car’s designers can think to put them. That means that most new cars are executing tens of million of lines of software code, controlling everything from your brakes to the volume of your radio [see ”How and Where Is Software Used in Cars? "].

”Automobiles are no longer a battery, a distributor or alternator and a carburetor; they are hugely modern in their complexity,” says Thomas Little, an electrical engineering professor at Boston University in Massachusetts, who is involved in developing intelligent transportation systems. ”The goals to save energy, reduce [emissions], and improve safety have driven the specialization and adoption of electronics in particular.”

I got led to this by a table in an Harvard Business Review article (HBR Reprint F1006A) which also said an average Ford automobile had 10 million lines of code driving it up from 2.4 million lines in 2005 and 6 million in 2008.

[aussiblue]

Also http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20004555-48.html

Fixing cars' brains saves Ford millions

DETROIT--Ford Motor Co. is doing its best to dispel the notion that more complex cars necessarily cost more to fix than less complex ones.

Ford has added dozens of electronic features to vehicles in the past five years, including Sync voice-activated communications and park assist.

The average Ford vehicle today takes 60 electronic control units or microcomputers to run all that gear, up from 15 modules 10 years ago, says Chris Davey, Ford technical leader of software and control systems engineering.

Yet Ford has cut its warranty costs for fixing electronic control units over the past five years by more than $100 million, Davey says.

Fix, don't replace

How? Ford, he says, has learned to fix or update the software inside these microbrains rather than replace the units when they malfunction or need new applications. Ford dealers have the software to do the fixes.

Ford also is using this process, which it calls In-Vehicle Software, to reuse software codes written into the electronic control units on future vehicle models. Davey declined to quantify potential savings, except to say they are substantial.

The average Ford vehicle contained 2 million to 3 million lines of software code 10 years ago, he says. Today, with all the new electronic equipment and the need for various control modules to communicate with one another, the average vehicle has 10 million lines of code.

Prior to the In-Vehicle Software process, Ford often swapped out faulty electronic control units when they needed service, Davey says. That was an expensive solution. Those modules, which control everything from engines to adaptive cruise control, cost $100 to $350 apiece just for the hardware, he says.

The cost of labor was additional. And pulling out the hardware had the potential to introduce squeaks and rattles, he says.

Today, Ford supplies its dealers with the software needed to diagnose problems with the units and they can be fixed or updated by a simple reflashing of the embedded software, says Dave Taylor, a senior global executive with Siemens PLM.

Siemens PLM, a business unit of Siemens AG in Germany, makes the product life cycle management software that Ford uses to flash applications into the electronic control modules at the factory and then track them throughout the life of a vehicle, Taylor says.

PACE winner

The software then identifies the necessary fixes when a vehicle needs service for a module repair or update, he says. The software can track the differences in software across models and nameplates, down to the individual vehicle using the vehicle identification number. That also makes it easier to pinpoint software problems in the field.

Siemens PLM received an Automotive News PACE Award in April for its Teamcenter In-Vehicle Software Management System. PACE stands for Premier Automotive Suppliers' Contribution to Excellence.

Knowing exactly which codes are embedded in each module allows Ford to use those module designs in future products often with only minor software updates, Davey says. That can result in huge cost savings across the global vehicle platforms that Ford is developing, he says.

An example of a global platform is the Ford Fiesta subcompact, which is being made in variations in Germany, China and Mexico.

[bungarra]

I think the Raptor would be more fun to use through a police radar trap

"Sarge, can you check this reading, what car does 1500km/hr?"

[Jim Goose]

One begs the question..... why??

The F-22 and F-35 are presently the most computer orientated and controlled aircraft out there and while they only admit to needing 1.5million lines of code (there would be more) I cant see why a car would need a 100millions lines to run an engine, brakes and a cd player!

Meanwhile an F-22 pulls up to 10Gs, has 2D engine nozzles, most complex radar out there, avoid being shot at, work out is position in 3D, cue missiles and drop bombs with pin point accuracy, be able to keep the plane airbourne in the sky.... blah blah blah..... and they saying a car needs more geekiness????

[Zephyr Mk1]

Tad more high tech and a whole lot more complicated then a Zephyr!

[MITCHAY]

Amount of lines of code is not a measure of complexity or quality of code. Any programmer will agree. Stupid article

[aussiblue]

One begs the question..... why

I agree you have to wonder but maybe the military just have more efficient programmers better programming languages or are simply better at applying the KISS principle. I guess complexity also increases risk - if your engine dies in your car due to a software glitch it's nowhere near as catastrophic as if the engine faiks in you F22 or F35.

[aussiblue]

Amount of lines of code is not a measure of complexity or quality of code

the article comes from an expert source in the IEEE so despite my previous comment I don't think it's about the quality oe efficiency of the programming and I think the point they were making was that the cars were more technically comlplex computer wise than the jets mentioned.

[aussiblue]

Lines of code are just an indicator measure so I suspect what they are really trying to say is that the extent of software in a car is in order of 2X to 5X of that in a fighter jet.

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I got led to this by a table in an Harvard Business Review article (HBR Reprint F1006A) which also said an average Ford automobile had 10 million lines of code driving it up from 2.4 million lines in 2005 and 6 million in 2008.

That just scares me; "to err is human but to really stuff things up requires a computer"

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Lines of code are just an indicator measure so I suspect what they are really trying to say is that the extent of software in a car is in order of 2X to 5X of that in a fighter jet.

I doubt that. The complexity of the software in a fighter jet probably means writing lean, efficient code to help running in a real-time environment. My guess is that a lot more money goes in to writing the systems for fighter jets than the humble automobile, and that also equates to more efficient code, which usually means less lines of code.
One is worth millions of dollars and the other is worth tens of thousands. There probably isn't the need to write more efficient code for the car.
Yes, I am a computer programmer and I have seen the effects of writing more efficient code. I've seen modules go from 10 lines down to about 2. They still perform the same function, just more efficiently.

[Raptor]

I think it's a result of the F-22 Raptor having a much more specific task and operating environment and far less concern for how the occupant(s) experience the dynamics and transient response of the aircraft vs what is trying to be achieved in a road car.

Similarly a F1 engine tune will be a lot more straight forward then a road cars varying parameters (cold start, lean cycle, emmisions etc)

[DJR-351]

How many lines in my XA....?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

How many lines in my XA....?

two big black ones out the back......

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

two big black ones out the back......

Then that's all I need.....

[Streets]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I doubt that. The complexity of the software in a fighter jet probably means writing lean, efficient code to help running in a real-time environment. My guess is that a lot more money goes in to writing the systems for fighter jets than the humble automobile, and that also equates to more efficient code, which usually means less lines of code.
One is worth millions of dollars and the other is worth tens of thousands. There probably isn't the need to write more efficient code for the car.
Yes, I am a computer programmer and I have seen the effects of writing more efficient code. I've seen modules go from 10 lines down to about 2. They still perform the same function, just more efficiently.

You should've seen the amount of lines I was using before I worked out how to use arrays properly.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I doubt that. The complexity of the software in a fighter jet probably means writing lean, efficient code to help running in a real-time environment. My guess is that a lot more money goes in to writing the systems for fighter jets than the humble automobile, and that also equates to more efficient code, which usually means less lines of code.
One is worth millions of dollars and the other is worth tens of thousands. There probably isn't the need to write more efficient code for the car.
Yes, I am a computer programmer and I have seen the effects of writing more efficient code. I've seen modules go from 10 lines down to about 2. They still perform the same function, just more efficiently.

+1 what he said. The systems used in fighter jets and such are real time/mission critical and they have to be written very carefully.

You can write a program or function and go over it again and reduce the amount of lines and complexity. Also making good use of predefined libraries.

I've seen it a lot with SQL queries in particular in that people write out multiple SELECTS rather than use procedures or prepared statements for example.

Or have many different functions that achieve the basically same thing and/or not using the them or have multiple classes that have common attributes and functions but don't inherit from a base class

[mrbaxr6t]

on the subject of code in computers it is highly dependant on the processor, if you were to design and manufacture a processor that was able to only do the instructions you need to in assembly and nothing else, then when you write code for such a machine it will be rocket fast robust and short. If you get a CPU from an IBM pc (CAN run a car) because of the complexity of the CPU itself then the lines of code will blowout terribly (in assembly I am talking here), also if you embed the OS type functions into the CPU itself it removes the need for an "operating system" so to speak, this too will reduce the amount of code that the CPU requires to accomplish the task. Fewer lines of code may indicate the systems in the f-22 raptor are streamlined processors that can do only what they need to and no more, wheras the ones in a car have more code to make a less specialised CPU perform the functions required to run the car, make sense?

[aussiblue]

Interestingly IBM, despite its decline from being the giant of the industry in the 70's, might still know a thing or two about computers make some similar observations here: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pr...ease/31826.wss

ORLANDO, FL - 07 Jun 2010: IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced it has teamed with industry leading manufacturers, Hughes Telematics, Inc. (HTI) and Daimler Fleetboard GmbH, to address the growing complexity of designing and managing automotive systems. The companies have collaborated with IBM to develop software platforms that more quickly deliver telematics services to their customers.

Although vehicles are becoming more complex they are also becoming smarter. The intersection of information and communications technology, also known as telematics, is expected to be a standard feature in vehicles by 2015 according to ABI Research.(1) The use of telematics allows vehicles to be connected in ways that are designed to enhance the driving experience for consumers, or increase the operational effectiveness of transportation companies.

The Growing Ecosystem of the Automotive Industry

Automotive manufacturers are also facing the challenge of having to integrate a growing amount of software, mechanical and electronic technologies across a vast ecosystem of suppliers. Additionally, these technologies need to be tracked and managed as they evolve over twenty-years -- the average lifespan of a vehicle.

Further contributing to this challenge, the evolution of automotive control electronics is expanding at a rapid rate. In 1990, the amount of electronics and software in a vehicle accounted for less than 16 percent of the vehicle's total value. Today, that share is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the value of a new vehicle.(2) Due to this exponential growth in the automotive electronics industry, owning a modern vehicle is equivalent to operating thirty or more computers on wheels. In fact, the average automobile now has several millions of lines of code(3) -- more than a space shuttle.

"As the use of software continues to serve as the basis for increased innovation and competitive advantage in the automobile industry, the traditional approach of developing software will not work for today's modern vehicle manufacturers and their partners," said Dr. Daniel Sabbah, general manager, IBM Rational. "Today, premium class vehicles are estimated to contain up to one gigabyte of on-board software. Clearly, the companies that will succeed in the automobile industry will be those that develop a core competency in designing, delivering and managing software."

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

on the subject of code in computers it is highly dependant on the processor, if you were to design and manufacture a processor that was able to only do the instructions you need to in assembly and nothing else, then when you write code for such a machine it will be rocket fast robust and short. If you get a CPU from an IBM pc (CAN run a car) because of the complexity of the CPU itself then the lines of code will blowout terribly (in assembly I am talking here), also if you embed the OS type functions into the CPU itself it removes the need for an "operating system" so to speak, this too will reduce the amount of code that the CPU requires to accomplish the task. Fewer lines of code may indicate the systems in the f-22 raptor are streamlined processors that can do only what they need to and no more, wheras the ones in a car have more code to make a less specialised CPU perform the functions required to run the car, make sense?

Damn straight.

One more point to make is that fighter jet avionics (such as our own F-18's), use a common "BUS" to communicate to other computers and avionics. Without this bus, every individual computer and avionics device which needs to talk to something else would need to be programmed to communicate specifically to that device.

Although a car does have a "BUS" to some degree, it is nowhere at the complexity of a modern fighter jet

[DanielXR8]

Given the number of times my GT was in for warranty repairs.... Yes.

[JimNiki]

This one's got me scratching my head?

I can't imagine an average car being so complex.
Firstly, how powerful is the cpu(s) running this software?

How much ram are we talking about? you all know that no program can run inless it's loaded in ram first ... I can start my car and drive off instantly. If my car needed this many lines of code to be loaded into ram first, I reckon that it'll be like a computer operating system where you can't do much until the program is loading...

I'd say that all these many systems are all programmed into eeproms, similar to a pc motherboard and are flashed just as easily...

In fact I've spent some time on my mates LS1 edit software which controls quite a few parameters. All this can be stored in only a few mb's.

I'd say it's more likely that the initial programming may have used several million lines of code (even this is hard to believe), but once compiled, it'll be infinitely smaller...

I wouldn't be surprised now to hear that a lot if not the majority of this code or routines are being outsourced to "guess where".

[Ross-b]

heres how it goes

alot of lines of code means nothing

in my degree we write alot of programs and mostly the guys with alot of lines of code score less then us guys with minimal lines of code

so too relate to this
a complex aircraft will have much better engineers so they will be able to cut out the crap


btw this sisnt the message of god
this is just the input from a 1st year engineer lol

[OzJavelin]

In 1990, the amount of electronics and software in a vehicle accounted for less than 16 percent of the vehicle's total value. Today, that share is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the value of a new vehicle.

What a waste of money which could be spent on something useful and mechanical .. like superchargers!

[Wretched]

Pointless comparing lines of code between the fighter jet and a car. Both are programmed for different purposes, both will have a whole different range of scenarios to account for. Jets don't need auto wipers, climate control, cd players, etc.

It is also dependant on the platform the code is written on and run on. The jet running I would assume on a far more advanced/efficient system, most of their budget being spent on the electronic system making sure it is right and fast. The car running on something a little more "dated."

Apples and Oranges!!!

[duaned]

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Pointless comparing lines of code between the fighter jet and a car. Both are programmed for different purposes, both will have a whole different range of scenarios to account for. Jets don't need auto wipers, climate control, cd players, etc.

It is also dependant on the platform the code is written on and run on. The jet running I would assume on a far more advanced/efficient system, most of their budget being spent on the electronic system making sure it is right and fast. The car running on something a little more "dated."

Apples and Oranges!!!

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the jet is running on 10-15 year old hardware. First flight of the prototype was 1990, first flight of a production standard airframe was 1997, entry to service was 2005.

The software has probably had a LOT more money thrown into making it as efficient as possible as well.