On 09/01/2015 16:32, Anton Lundin wrote:
I've bin thinking if this is a good idea to plot in our already massive
plot.
I'm more leaning towards just plotting a computed po2 value here, and
the setpoint of course, and then rather add a some sort of separate tool
to analyze the o2 cells, and how they correlate to each other, outside
the general dive plot.
I think thats going to be a way more useful tool.
//Anton
Anton,
I hope I can offer a systematic argument here. So, for this reason, I
have numbered the points below.
1. In order to perform evaluation of oxygen sensors it is, as a start,
necessary to visualise the individual sensor readings. Other CCR
software also do this. Attached, as Image 1, is a screen dump from the
APD software. This is part of the main graphical display of that
software. It shows the measurements for each of the three sensors, the
setpoint and the depth profile. Even though their graphical environment
is somewhat rudimentary (at least compared to Subsurface) this is the
sort of information that APD divers in this part of the world look at as
an aid to evaluate the condition of their equipment's oxygen management
system and also the diver's interaction with that system. Unfortunately
my Poseidon software is not running at the moment (license issues), so I
use APD software as an example. This type of visualisation is not
exceptional. It is close to the norm.
2. If you remember, we had a a short discussion about the uptake of
Subsurface by the CCR community about t month ago. You argued that there
was no noticeable uptake. I argued that, if we do not provide CCR divers
with some of the common tools that they expect, we cannot expect uptake.
3. I have been working for close to a year now, trying to create
infrastructure that would make CCR divers adopt Subsurface. I have two
teams of Poseidon divers (MkVI and Se7en) who are rearing to test
Subsurface. But I cannot give this to them if it does not offer the
facilities that they require. The longer I wait, the sooner the window
of opportunity will pass. This has direct bearing on the uptake of
Subsurface by the CCR community at least in our part of the world.
4. I can sympathise with with your point of view of creating a separate
tool. Now I wish to ask a question. Would you be prepared to generate
the separate tool that you intend? Until now, I have been working mostly
on my own, but with significant help from Miika and Robert. Do we need
to wait until someone, some time in the future, will be prepared to push
the Subsurface CCR initiative further? Or are you prepared to commit to
a plan of action to create a new Subsurface tool?
5. Would you like this to be an independent non-Subsurface tool? Would
someone need to separately rewrite the whole infrastructure for and
visualisation of dive logs that Sursurface already has?
5. My suggestion is this: Please, let's for the meantime work with the
present code which is not perfect. There are one or two rough edges that
need to be smoothed over. But let us use it until someone comes with a
better idea of how to deal with CCR dive logging and interpretation in
the open source domain. I perceive this to be an opportunity for
Subsurface, not a threat.
Please tell me what you think?
Kind regards,
willem
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
