suggested changes to the fake profile
dirk at hohndel.org
Fri Jan 3 11:35:25 UTC 2014
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 11:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:
> > If no average depth is given we should create standard rectangular
> > profile or a rectangular profile with safety stop (assuming the dive was
> > long and deep enough for that to be reasonable).
> Try it. It looks ridiculous for a 145ft dive.
> That's not entirely theoretical. I used my Belize Blue Hole dive as a
> test comparison to a dive with a 140ft max and no average. The
> rectangular version looks just crazy.
> avg_d = max_d/2 admittedly looks even better, but the "avg_d = (max_d
> + 10m ) / 3" came from some other dives.
> I agree that our dive profiles don't look wonderful (and that's true
> even *if* you have a mean depth), but compared to the "rectangular
> with a safety stop" they look fine. So it may be a slightly ad-hoc
> thing, but it's certainly not worse than some of the alternatives you
You are missing my point. We have bug reports from people who have dives
that they manually logged in other formats (an iPhone app, a web site)
that they import and they complain that our made up profiles make no
sense. And while I can happily reply "the rectangular profiles make no
sense, either", one of them quite sensibly replied back "hey, these come
from my PADI paper logbook and the deco class assigned is based on a
rectangular profile, so I want my dives to look like that in Subsurface
In general I have only taken the "go away" approach when people were off
their meds. This request I can actually understand.
Anyway, this is only about people who
a) import dives from a 3rd part format
b) have no avg depth in their data
Which tells me that they were getting rectangular profiles before. So
they should be able to get rectangular profiles from us as well.
More information about the subsurface