2015-08-17 17:54 GMT+02:00 Robert C. Helling <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On 17 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Rick Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Which approach is more justified? Debatable. The method used by Subsurface > should be 'better', but when the depth of the first stop/ceiling is given a > special significance thanks to the Boyles law compensation process, I'm not > so sure. The 'instantaneous' ceiling method is more conservative, and, > without having modified the code and tested, I'm guessing would produce deco > schedules more consistent with other VPM-B programs. > > > I thought a bit about this. To me, it does not make much sense to ascent > only if I can „see“ the ceiling is above the next stop and not to ascent as > long as we don’t violate the ceiling. > > On the other hand, one could argue this behaviour is part of the definition > of the model and has been tested as such (or otherwise, some of the > constants would have to be changed). > > So maybe the best might be to let the user decide. So here is a patch that > adds this as a preferences value (so far without UI, so to test it, you have > to set it in the code). > > On the other hand, we don’t want to confuse the user with too many options. > > And what is a reasonable default? Set this to false for Buehlmann and to > true for VPM-B or maybe even only make this an option for VPM-B? > > Best > Robert
In my opinion we shouldn't leave this as a preference, it's to technical and complicated to explain to most of users. We have the conservatism levels already, so users can manipulate how aggressive their schedule is. -- Jan Darowski _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
