Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)


Staedler

New Member
Registered Member
Sorry I mean decades to refine and continuously develop to a point that it is similarly effective. China's first attempt at a CATIA like software wouldn't be anywhere close to as capable as CATIA from Dassault. It would take decades to continuously develop and refine and to build up its functions.

I mean Autodesk's first CAD version isn't going to be anything comparable to the most current one.
Like others have said, building equivalent software is not difficult.

Commercial software mostly consists either of functions no one asked for or meaningless shuffles of the underlying technology. This is enhanced by insufficient time and budget for testing resulting in bugs that require yet more work. The end result is mostly just shuffling around in place with no tangible benefit. There are no fundamentally difficult software algorithms/functions that are being added between versions.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
If the software is simulating physical processes that you are not sure how to simulate it’s a basic science problem, not just as software problem.
The ability of industrial software and the commercialization competitiveness of industrial software are two different things. China's performance in the latter is not satisfactory, but for the former, I believe that China has enough high-cost, non-open source, distributed software to maintain its basic scientific research capabilities, although these basic capabilities may not be able to be used on a large scale Production of consumer goods.

You know, even in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was nearly no graphical interface, the predecessors of the finite element analysis (FEA) software NASTRAN and the multi-body dynamics (MBD) software ADAMS were widely used in various simulations of the Apollo program. Achieving a basic level of distributed functionality is not difficult for China.

Although in the field of commercialized software such as EDA, which is highly dependent on a huge electronic process database, chip design library, and patent barriers, China still needs to go a long way.
Well, a big part of industrial simulation software is algorithmic efficiency, and it takes legwork to figure out the most efficient compute method to do a specific simulation. I imagine that’s one of the primary attributes Chinese engineers and researchers are finding with western software that they can’t get as much with a domestic alternative. It saves a lot of effort and time to be able to do some complex advanced simulations on a more portable device like a workstation or laptop and not have to wait on supercomputer availability to get your data.
 

Staedler

New Member
Registered Member
Well, a big part of industrial simulation software is algorithmic efficiency, and it takes legwork to figure out the most efficient compute method to do a specific simulation. I imagine that’s one of the primary attributes Chinese engineers and researchers are finding with western software that they can’t get as much with a domestic alternative. It saves a lot of effort and time to be able to do some complex advanced simulations on a more portable device like a workstation or laptop and not have to wait on supercomputer availability to get your data.
That is theoretically true, but I somehow doubt stuff like the CATIA mentioned are actually using the most efficient/accurate compute methods. I think that would require salaries levels that Dassault isn't offering, and an internal experience that is an industry-outlier. Rather I think they are using good-enough methods which have existed in research for quite some time.

I don't dispute that it would save time and effort to use existing stuff rather than have to roll your own. I just think it's on the order of 2 years of work from a dedicated team rather than the decades ougoah stated. Just something that companies wouldn't have funded the domestic development of given existing market products doing the same.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
That is theoretically true, but I somehow doubt stuff like the CATIA mentioned are actually using the most efficient/accurate compute methods. I think that would require salaries levels that Dassault isn't offering, and an internal experience that is an industry-outlier. Rather I think they are using good-enough methods which have existed in research for quite some time.

I don't dispute that it would save time and effort to use existing stuff rather than have to roll your own. I just think it's on the order of 2 years of work from a dedicated team rather than the decades ougoah stated. Just something that companies wouldn't have funded the domestic development of given existing market products doing the same.
All I’m saying is that insofar as domestic solutions providers are behind their western counterparts one likely factor is simply compute efficiency. I agree we’re talking more two year of work or even less than 10 years of work. It’s not that you couldn’t get much faster compute methods onto your domestic sim software relatively quickly, but that’s because these markets tend to operate off good enough principles and customer lock in business models.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Senior Member
Registered Member
DF-XX, from Computational Aerodynamics Institute Article
Capture.PNG

"unknown" "unknown" "unknown" "unknown"

Departments and agencies in China that are responsible for keeping those figures "unknown" be like:
do61c.jpg

Who knows if DF-17 would have DF-26's range instead of DF-21's range as many have thought for the past years? Or that DF-XX would be capable of reaching Hawaii and Sydney?

(I hope that would be the case too, just so that China can scare the sh1t outta USINDOPACOM in case of war.)
 

by78

Lieutenant General
Scramjet for hypersonic missiles and planes. Operating envelope mach 4 to 7.

52481347528_e590d361f1_k.jpg

52481264580_814a405d5f_k.jpg

52481347433_085c925b49_k.jpg
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 99958



Departments and agencies in China that are responsible for keeping those figures "unknown" be like:
View attachment 99959

Who knows if DF-17 would have DF-26's range instead of DF-21's range as many have thought for the past years? Or that DF-XX would be capable of reaching Hawaii and Sydney?

(I hope that would be the case too, just so that China can scare the sh1t outta USINDOPACOM in case of war.)
The US now having shits, lots of it, in their pants already! Trying to talk to China about nuclear disarmament? What a bloody joke! What a bloody hypocrite!
 

Top