[PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

[Jan Darowski]

2015-08-17 17:54 GMT+02:00 Robert C. Helling <helling at atdotde.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On 17 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which approach is more justified?  Debatable.  The method used by Subsurface
> should be 'better', but when the depth of the first stop/ceiling is given a
> special significance thanks to the Boyles law compensation process, I'm not
> so sure.  The 'instantaneous' ceiling method is more conservative, and,
> without having modified the code and tested, I'm guessing would produce deco
> schedules more consistent with other VPM-B programs.
>
>
> I thought a bit about this. To me, it does not make much sense to ascent
> only if I can „see“ the ceiling is above the next stop and not to ascent as
> long as we don’t violate the ceiling.
>
> On the other hand, one could argue this behaviour is part of the definition
> of the model and has been tested as such (or otherwise, some of the
> constants would have to be changed).
>
> So maybe the best might be to let the user decide. So here is a patch that
> adds this as a preferences value (so far without UI, so to test it, you have
> to set it in the code).
>
> On the other hand, we don’t want to confuse the user with too many options.
>
> And what is a reasonable default? Set this to false for Buehlmann and to
> true for VPM-B or maybe even only make this an option for VPM-B?
>
> Best
> Robert

In my opinion we shouldn't leave this as a preference, it's to
technical and complicated to explain to most of users. We have the
conservatism levels already, so users can manipulate how aggressive
their schedule is.


-- 
Jan Darowski