Proposal

[Jan Darowski]

I've just submitted the proposal on melange.

2015-03-25 11:12 GMT+01:00 Jan Darowski <jan.darowski at gmail.com>:
> 1) yes, I know.
> 2) I think that we can modify the algorithm a little bit so it will
> give the same results as the original one, without strictly specifying
> phases of the dive. In fact, there are a few factors modifying
> compartments state and we can apply them through all the dive. Just
> some of them won't have much impact during some phases. I think that
> division into phases has been used to explain the theory more easily.
> 3) As for now, I don't think the first phase you described would take
> too much time... I still think that even with the long studying period
> there will be some details discovered during the implementation. And I
> need to dive into the Subsurface code before starting coding to know
> how to organize it and make compatible with other parts, like the case
> from point 2
>
> 2015-03-25 10:07 GMT+01:00 Robert Helling <helling at atdotde.de>:
>> Jan,
>>
>> On 24.03.2015, at 21:34, Jan Darowski <jan.darowski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is my proposal for the GSoC. I believe it's the last thing from
>> the projects checklist so if you have any suggestions on how I could
>> improve it, please let me know.
>>
>>
>> very nice proposal! Just a few additional comments (in addition to what the
>> others have said already). Some of these might also apply to other
>> candidates thinking about the VPM-B project:
>>
>> * We will not replace the old model. The bubble model will be an option the
>> user can choose. A large motivation for implementing this model is to give
>> the user the possibility to compare the consequences of the different models
>> (also for educating divers). So some though will have to go into how to make
>> it easy for users to see what they want to see when comparing one model to
>> the other.
>>
>> * In the current code, the Buehlmann model is used in two separate (but of
>> course related) places: a) to plan the decompression of future dives and b)
>> to plot the ceilings in logged dives so the user can see how the real dive
>> compares to the theoretical model. Existing implementations of VPM only care
>> about application a) but it would be great to find a way to make it also
>> usable for b). Obstacles here are for example that real world dives don’t
>> have well defined descent, bottom and ascent phases.
>>
>> * I would slightly alter the timeline: What you describe should go into two
>> phases: The first will be to actually understand the model (by reading
>> texts, looking at existing code, stepping through existing code with a
>> debugger). To me the duration of this phase is the big unknown. The result
>> of that phase could be something like a flow diagram with formulas. The
>> second phase will be the actual implementation (I think that will not take
>> too much time once we understand the model, I would expect a prototype in
>> about a week of coding). This phase already includes debugging, testing and
>> comparing to existing implementation. Then we will have to think how to hook
>> it up with the existing UI and give the user a good experience (see above).
>>
>> Best
>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oO
>> Robert C. Helling     Elite Master Course Theoretical and Mathematical
>> Physics
>>                       Scientific Coordinator
>>                       Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Dept. Physik
>>                       Phone: +49 89 2180-4523  Theresienstr. 39, rm. B339
>>                       http://www.atdotde.de
>>
>> Enhance your privacy, use cryptography! My PGP keys have fingerprints
>> A9D1 A01D 13A5 31FA 6515  BB44 0820 367C 36BC 0C1D    and
>> DCED 37B6 251C 7861 270D  5613 95C7 9D32 9A8D 9B8F
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>