On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:24:34PM +0100, Robert Helling wrote: > Hi, > > > On 07 Feb 2017, at 19:53, Stefan Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I understand that we don't want to tweak the VPM-B implementation to make > > the results look nicer w/o knowing if this is then still in line with the > > ideas of "the real model" and I fully agree to this. But maybe based on > > Linus finding there is until now really a misunderstanding regarding the > > implementation for this specific detail? > > I guess (as so often) Linus is right, we should reset the state between dives > (except of course tissue saturations) to get rid of this anomaly, and if > other code does that even better. > > I attach a patch that does this. > > There is probably no point in arguing about the original model since that > IIIRC does not consider repetitive dives but I have to check the docs again. > In any case, I would say this still shows how strange the model is: We have > to artificially reset parameters between two dives. But of course „between > dives“ can be somewhat arbitrary: If you only surface for a few minutes and > then descend again, are these „two dives“ (which require a reset in between > and how does your body know that it has to reset itself, after all this is > what we are supposed to simulate) or is this a single dive (without reset)? > What I take away is the impression that this does not make a lot of sense. > > But yes, please take this patch for master.
So, err, should I, or shouldn't I? The discussion left me thinking that VPM-B clearly is even more bogus and weird than I thought before, but I'm not sure we came to a conclusion what to do here... Thanks /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
