dirk at hohndel.org
Sat Jan 5 00:13:24 PST 2013
Miika Turkia <miika.turkia at gmail.com> writes:
>> OK did some more investigations: My best guess is, that the reason would
>> be that we do not take the ascent into account while the dive computer
>> does. Deciding if there should be a stop and at which depth seems to be
>> done in deco_allowed_depth() based on the value of tissues_tolerance
>> related to surface pressure. As soon as tissues_tolerance is larger than
>> surface pressure we start to calculate the deco ceiling while the dive
>> computer calculates an ascent at the given ascent rate at exactly this
>> time resulting in some decompression on the way up resulting in no deco
>> stop at all. The same for all the following samples: We start
>> calculating the deco ceiling based on no future prediction while the
>> dive computer does it all the time. In my theory, this would also
>> explain while the calculated depth is always deeper than the real one.
>> Just a theory but my best so far...
> This sounds plausible when looking at my non-deco dives. I do see
> ceilings on dives that did not go to deco (according to my DC). And
> playing with the GFs does not give any consistent correction to this
Well - I don't see this as an inaccuracy. I don't try to model dive
computer behavior. I try to model the situation at a specific moment of
time. Think of it this way... if you had a catastrophic equipment
failure and shot to the surface. And let's assume you managed to avoid
an embolism or anything... would you have violated the deco ceiling?
If most people feel differently and want the ceiling calculated assuming
some reasonable speed ascent then we can of course do that - but that to
me is not the point of what I am displaying. I'm literally showing you
that you have what the literature calls a ceiling. You can not do a safe
CESA (controlled emergency swimming ascent).
But what you really want, I think, is what I have done in the planner
mode. Time to stop is taken into account.
> However, this might also be the mentioned air bug, even
> though some Nitrox dives do also get the ceiling without going into
> deco in real life.
That bug is fixed in master, too.
> 55/96 seems to get quite close to what my computers thought during
> these dives, but I believe Suuntos (stinger and Vyper) are more
> conservative than that (not that I would know what these GF values
> really mean).
Neither do I. But as I mentioned in my commit message - the shape of
that ceiling seems awfully strange to me at times. Yes, I can easily
hide that (switching to 3m increments usually does the trick), but it
still makes me nervous.
> Anyway, the real reason for replying is to report that the 3m
> increment selection is currently not functioning. It is in effect with
> and without selecting it.
I don't think that's true. I do see odd jumps in the ceiling, but I do
see smooth changes and lots of values that aren't multiples of 3m
More information about the subsurface