<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 November 2016 at 21:35, Robert Helling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:helling@atdotde.de" target="_blank">helling@atdotde.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span class="gmail-"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 26.11.2016 um 23:24 schrieb Anton Lundin <<a href="mailto:glance@acc.umu.se" target="_blank">glance@acc.umu.se</a>>:</div><br class="gmail-m_-4286145114080852908Apple-interchange-newline"><div><br style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline">It depends if i step to +1 from +0 or from +2. Timing issue somewhere?</span><br style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline">Weird numeric instability?<span class="gmail-m_-4286145114080852908Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div></blockquote></div></span></div></blockquote><div>Anton, I got even weirder numeric instability for dive with 60min at 30m on 32% nitrox:<br> 

<p style="margin:0px;text-indent:0px"><span style="font-weight:600">Subsurface dive plan</span><br>based on VPM-B at +2 conservatism, effective GF=-2147483648/-2147483648</p>
<p style="margin:0px;text-indent:0px">Runtime: 96min</p></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span class="gmail-"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"></div></blockquote></div><br></span><div>Excellent spot! It first compiled the planner notes before computing the new gradient factors.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a patch.</div><div><br></div><br></div></blockquote><div>Robert, your patch fixes the above bug.  Same dive:<br>

<p style="margin:0px;text-indent:0px"><span style="font-weight:600">Subsurface dive plan</span><br>based on VPM-B at +2 conservatism, effective GF=63/63</p>
<p style="margin:0px;text-indent:0px">Runtime: 96min</p><br></div><div>Cheers,<br><br></div><div>Rick<br></div></div></div></div>