<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/21/2015 04:40 PM, Rick Walsh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAF+v9JvE7XMNziZ6AgQBHBXhFDRhBde7rhJaoc5AN8f_co58kg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Steve,<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 22 June 2015 at 08:48, Steve
Butler <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kg7je@comcast.net" target="_blank">kg7je@comcast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""> On
06/21/2015 03:23 PM, Rick Walsh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">On 22 Jun 2015 8:16 am, "Steve Butler"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kg7je@comcast.net" target="_blank">kg7je@comcast.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 06/20/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Walsh wrote:On
21 Jun 2015 11:19 am, "Dirk Hohndel" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dirk@hohndel.org" target="_blank">dirk@hohndel.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> >On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:17:28AM
+1000, Rick Walsh wrote:<br>
>> > > But what about me? I like SI
units and whole decimals. Don't worry, 2 s<br>
>> > > timesteps fit nicely when using
10 m/s ascent rate (18 s between stops).<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</span> snip<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">> Also my DC records every 10s. One
of the DCs i'm looking at does 5s intervals. <br>
><br>
> How would this work comparing the pre-dive
plan with the post-dive profile?<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">The change has nothing to do with
setting or limiting an ascent rate. Currently the
ascent to the next stop is done in 3 second
increments. If you ascend at 30ft/min (Subsurface
default, which matches most DCs) it should take
20s to ascend 10ft. But in 3s increments it is
bumped out to 21s. No huge issue but it makes the
calculated plan have some odd runtimes.<br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
</span> So that would be 10 calculations (one every 2s)
between stops. If you slid the other way and went every
4s then its 5 calculations up to the next stop. Any
concerns with snappiness (performance) on slower
machines?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have an 8 year old laptop, and calculations appear
immediate, so I don't think it's too intensive. Changing
from 3s to 2s means we do 10 calculations rather than 7,
which isn't that dramatic. Changing to 4s is ok for a
30ft (9m) /min ascent rate, but for 20ft (6m) /min ascent
(also common), a stop should take 30s but that becomes
32s. 5s is ok for 20ft/min or 30ft/min but isn't good for
5 m/min or 10 m/min.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You are right, it isn't all that efficient. I tried
setting it to the time it takes to ascend to the next stop
(do the ascent in one jump), which I thought should work.
And to quote a great of modern philosophy, "60 percent of
the time it worked every time". Occasionally, it would
just break a ceiling.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>R</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
To paraphrase another great thinker -- "Efficiency is over-rated."
<br>
<br>
Or, "To err is human. To really mess things up you need a
computer."<br>
</body>
</html>