On 21 August 2015 at 00:30, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 09:31:30PM +1000, Rick Walsh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > VPM-B is producing different plans in the latest master. I have tracked > it > > down to commit 72806e42bc23ab7c7f2a639a1efee017388b53bc Replace global > > in_planner variable by helper function. I don't believe this commit was > > supposed to change the resulting plans. > > Well, the patch was incomplete and Robert sent the second half yesterday, > but I didn't get around to apply that - I just did. > > Can you please retest with the latest master that I just pushed? >
Thanks Dirk and Robert, it worked much better in my three minutes of testing as I ate breakfast this morning. However, I did get an error message in the red box at the base of the screen when testing the 100 m / 10 min dive with 18/45 bottom gas. Along the lines of the cubic equation has a complex solution. Sorry, I had no time to track down the cause. If I were a betting man, I might put my money on it being related to there being 45% He and 37% N2, i.e. fHe > fN2. If that's the case, we might need to pretend fN2 - fHe = 0 in the equation determining the exponential decay parameter, or otherwise put a lower bound on the terms in the cubic equation. I think this is leading us to ignore the CVA iterations that produce deeper first stops (from memory, our comparison profiles from other software has the first stop at ~54m compared to our 42m), and come up with a less than ideal profile. Cheers, Rick
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
