On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jef Driesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It seems the estimated size is off by 64 to 832 bytes (or 2-26 samples). > That's a bit worse than the numbers I got. I wonder where those extra > samples come from. One possibility is that the divetime does not include > shallow samples. If that's true, then it might be impossible to find an > upper bound. > I have configured a 4 minute delay at the end of the dive, maybe that's the reason? Ideally, we want an upper bound for the estimated size. If the actual size > is larger than our estimated size (underestimation), the progress will > exceed 100%. That's certainly not good. We can always force the current > progress to stay below our estimated value to avoid this problem. But the > downside is that doing that will "freeze" the progress at 100% although > there is still data being transferred. With an overestimation, the progress > may not reach 100%, but that's fine. A ballpark estimation is way better than about 2^24 off :) Henrik
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
