Discrepancies between DC and subsurface's deco

[Patrick Valsecchi]

Hi,

I've added a config option for this flag. While doing that, I simplified 
a bit the code handling the configuration.

Please have a look at the two attached patches.

Thanks.

On 11/06/2013 08:11 AM, Patrick Valsecchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to figure out why my DC (Shearwater Petrel) and 
> subsurface where showing different stops, subsurface being on the 
> safer side. See attached defaultSubsurface.png.
>
> Looking at the code, I saw the #define GF_LOW_AT_MAXDEPTH 0 and tried 
> to set it to 1. Now, the stops are more similar. See attached 
> maxDepthSubsurface.png.
>
> Can somebody explain to me what is the meaning of this 
> GF_LOW_AT_MAXDEPTH?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> subsurface mailing list
> subsurface at hohndel.org
> http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20131120/6a25e8f6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Refactoring-of-the-configuration-handling.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 10063 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20131120/6a25e8f6/attachment-0002.patch>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Added-a-configuration-option-to-have-gf_low-apply-at.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 8744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20131120/6a25e8f6/attachment-0003.patch>