Partial push of Josh's configure-dive-computer GSoC project

[David Tillotson]

Just to echo Jef's statements wrt the Reefnet support, I have found the products and support for development beyond compare. Having a background in electronics RnD and manufacture, I was shocked at just how open Reefnet are - I have been able to implement a rudimentary data download on a RPi with the documentation (just a PoC for another project), which would be impossible on any other device.
I may be something of an unusual use case, but I don't bother downloading data from my dive computers, as the Sensus Pro has better data (if anyone has an Ultra lying idle, I would be interested in putting it to use). The only thing I don't see are DC events, but I use a Chocrane (I know, but it works), and on the odd time I use a borrowed Suunto, I don't want to see them ;)

On 19 August 2014 15:48:18 BST, Jef Driesen <jef at libdivecomputer.org> wrote:
>On 2014-08-19 15:20, Davide DB wrote:
>> Months ago, when i started to use Subsurface, I asked to support
>Sensus
>> ultra devices. I helped Miika to understand their CVS format. Miika
>> implemented only the CSV import via their file. So the device must be
>> downloaded via their client.
>
>That's not true. The Sensus Ultra is a supported devices. You can 
>download your dives directly from subsurface. Have you actually tried 
>this?
>
>> The problem lies there. Their client is one of the worst piece of 
>> software
>> I ever seen. From their site you can see they do not update it from 
>> 2010.
>
>If you mean it only offers basic functionality with a somewhat dated 
>look and feel, then I agree. But it's far from the worst software I've 
>seen. Why would it need an update if it already worked fine in 2010?
>
>Reefnet is actively encouraging third-party developers to support their
>
>hardware, rather than trying to write a great application of their own.
>
>If you ask me, that's the right thing to do. You get their basic app, 
>and if you want something more advanced, there are plenty of other 
>choices.
>
>> The icing on the cake is their USB driver. They used a Prolific
>PL2303
>> driver widely used but just google for it and you will see tons of
>post 
>> of
>> people going crazy about it.
>> 
>> https://www.google.it/search?q=driver+usb+pl2303
>> 
>> On Windows XP it works but on Windows7 it fails on 90% of
>installations 
>> I
>> tried.
>> Moral of the story: I know of at least 12 sensus ultra lying in a 
>> drawer
>> just because after changing PC it was impossible to detect the device
>> connected.
>> I had to install a XP VM on my dive buddy box just to download his 
>> dives,
>> then he got bored and throw it away.
>> Moreover I don't see that Reefnet cares too much about it. And it's a
>> shame. I agree they fully documented their product but... no, you are
>
>> not
>> supposed to be an space engineer to use a datalogger.
>
>So you are blaming Reefnet for problems with the Prolific drivers?
>There 
>is very little they can do about that, because the driver is made by 
>Prolific, not Reefnet.
>
>I guess many of those Prolific driver problems are due to the fact that
>
>their Windows driver started to blacklist counterfeit chips a few years
>
>ago:
>
>http://www.prolific.com.tw/US/ShowProduct.aspx?p_id=155&pcid=41
>
>Those "chinese" counterfeit chips are probably widespread in existing 
>hardware :-(
>
>> So IMHO, before spending time on a obsolete device, try to solve the
>> download problem.
>
>There is a long standing problem with libdivecomputer and the Sensus 
>Ultra on Mac OS X (seems to be a timing or latency issue). But on my 
>Linux system it's rock solid. I have to admit I haven't tested on 
>Windows in a long while (it's not my primary OS).
>
>At the time of its introduction, which is more than 10 years ago, a
>dive 
>computer with a PC interface was pretty rare. Nowadays, you may no 
>longer need one, because even the cheapest dive computer model has it. 
>But even by todays standards, the Sensus Ultra design isn't outdated. 
>For example the memory capacity (2MB) and precision/accuracy still 
>exceeds that of many current dive computers. Compare that with Suunto 
>(8-64K), Oceanic (32-128K) or Mares (16-1024K) just to name a few. Only
>
>state of the art technical dive computer like the OSTC and Petrel have 
>comparable (or more) logbook memory.
>
>Jef
>_______________________________________________
>subsurface mailing list
>subsurface at hohndel.org
>http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface

-- 
David Tillotson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20140819/165e0be9/attachment-0001.html>