Discrepancies between DC and subsurface's deco

[Patrick Valsecchi]

Hi,

I have a feeling that I hit a nerve or something with this email? If 
it's the case, I'm deeply sorry.

At least have a look at the first patch that just simplifies the code. I 
don't mind if the second one is silently ignored.

Thanks.

On 20. 11. 13 16:30, Patrick Valsecchi wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131122/ba5eb2ce/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Refactoring-of-the-configuration-handling.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 10063 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20131122/ba5eb2ce/attachment-0001.bin>