Change request - safety stop in NDL

[gorcio]

Hi,

some time ago we have discussed about having or not having safety stop feature with countdown timer. In the end, we have it. Fine, it's HW's decission. However, please let me say that this function, contrary to others, is only half-baked for the moment. Taking into account the past argument, that it might be implemented with extra CF as we have plenty of them, my argument is now - since we have plenty, make it two CFs instead of one, one for depth, one for time. Current implementation seems to be misleading a lot of people, trained in different organizations, or different ways, especially with depth starting from 5m up.

I am not trying to dispute necessity of having it here - this is done deal, no point in going back. But if we have it - let's make it work as good as other features. Since people are supposed to know what they are doing when configuring the unit and following it in the dives (some do follow computers, not plans) - let's give them a choice of knowing what they are doing and setting "safety" stop as they please.

Again, my intention is to propose modification to existing feature, and NOT to open a discussion whether it is needed or not.

Kind regards,

Gorcio, OSTC MkII 828

Edit heinrichsweikamp: Thread closed

[Commander]

Sounds good. I support that request as I miss this feature.

Best regards

Kai

[Clownfish]

I use this for all my non-deco dives. At the moment I use the modified file that starts at 6 m as I try to do the stop as close as possible to 5 m, but this can mean anything from 4.5 to 5.5 m when under the boat. As the aim is to do it at 5 m, the default option of 5 m means you have to do it shallower than 5 m. It is impossible to stay close without the countdown stopping once you go below 5 m.

In addition, all my training and how we dive in Australia is to do a 5 minute stop rather than the 3 minute stop others seem to favour.

Therefore, I would support any move to permit the user to select the depth of starting the countdown as well as the number of minutes.

[scubatinoo]

I'll support this request. This will be a unique feature among all dive computers...

[Commander]

@ scubatinoo
That´s not correct. I had an Oceanic Veo 2.0 before the OSTC and I was able to select the depth for the deco stop. I am not sure whether I was able to select the time for the deco stop or not but I think that was also possible.

Best regards

Kai

[scubatinoo]

Commander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure whether I was
> able to select the time for the deco stop or not
> but I think that was also possible.

As long as you can't remember, it's unique (:P)

[gorcio]

Having a unique feature could be a selling point, but it's up to HW to evaluate if such point presents any commercial value. My point is to make it work as other features - give user flexibility to specify how the unit should behave, trusting that user knows what one's doing. There is no reason, if my proposal is accepted, to leave it by default on currently hardcoded values.

[Commander]

On page 36 and 37 of the Veo 2.0 Manual is described that the user can choose a timer between 3 and 5 minutes for the deco stop.

[gorcio]

Commander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On page 36 and 37 of the Veo 2.0 Manual

that's really great, but I suggest we leave this topic solely to change request and keep it clean to allow easy reading.

[fbk3]

I would really like this feature too.

[gorcio]

It would be nice to see any response from HW.

[heinrichsweikamp]

gorcio Wrote:
> Having a unique feature could be a selling point,
> but it's up to HW to evaluate if such point
> presents any commercial value.

While we keep this in mind, this is not our primary motivation for the OSTC firmware. I' quite sure we're actually lost some OSTC sales due to this this safety stop discussion.

regards,
Matthias

[gorcio]

heinrichsweikamp Wrote:
> I' quite
> sure we're actually lost some OSTC sales due to
> this this safety stop discussion.

Yeah. I thought it was not needed and voiced it out in the discussion. On the other hand, I can't imaging losign sales on it as it would probably attract more recreational users towards the unit (were it customisable). However, now the function is here, please consider making it usable for all users by parametrising it. Also, to be honest with you, I know many OSTC users who are in fact strictly recreational users, but bought OSTC unit due to price and screen quality, and left it on defaults. Some of them actually asked me if I knew a way to change that safety stop feature as no one here does 5m/3'.

Thanks for your response and looking into it, it's great to know that a response might be expected (whatever the response ).

[swissdiving]

For the recreational market, HW has released the Frog. The OSTC is definatly not pitched at recreational market.

[quote="HeinrichsWeikamp on the OSTC"]
What this OSTC 2N dive computer is not:
Competition for cheap mass products for the occasional diver.

What this OSTC 2N dive computer is:
An experimental platform for all experienced divers who are interested in the theory of diving and who value maximum transparency and individual adaptabily .

There are already several high-performance dive computers on the market-- not quite a dime a dozen, but enough to give users a choice of products.
[/quote]

[gorcio]

swissdiving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the recreational market, HW has released the
> Frog. The OSTC is definatly not pitched at
> recreational market.

Yes, understood. Then why safety stop was introduced at all ? If it is already there, there is no reason to make it right, or to remove it. But I see no point in having a function that does not appeal to one group, nor to the other.
So, let's not discuss what is intended for which market, but let's focus on making it either work correctly (let anyone experiment with it by setting it to custom values following fact that OSTC is an experimental unit), or let's get rid of it completely. Leaving half-baked, half-usable function is probably the least optimal option, hence my suggestion.

Let me quote this :
who value maximum transparency and individual adaptabily .

[Bardass]

gorcio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me quote this : who value maximum transparency and individual adaptabily .


my answer: using the stopwatch at the depth you want

[swissdiving]

Gorcio read this thread:
http://forum.heinrichsweikamp.com/read.php?2,9827,9827#msg-9827

[gorcio]

Thank you @swissdiving.
Thank you @Bardass. Obviously my intention, expressed in the first email was not understood. I give up. Thank you all for your feedback, opinion and answers.
Good night all.

[Clownfish]

Gorcio, do not give up, more support you than do not as far as I can see.

[swissdiving]

Actually Gorcio,

Your point has been understood very well indeed, but if you bother checking the forum you will note that this issue has been discussed serveral times in depth and very controversially.
You will also notice that HW until now has had no intention in making any further changes. As a matter of fact it was DiverM who created a hex file with an adjustd Safety Stop function.
I stated my reasons for believing that the implementation of a safety stop is a waste of a CF several times and have no intention of repeating them again.

However it is up to HW to decided whether they want to make any further changes to this function. I, for my part use my brain and the stop watch function for a safety stop.

[Anonymous User]

A safety stop in a technical diving computer is just ridiculous! I wonder if this is all a joke just to put damage to the OSTC credibility.

My advice: Remove it from the existing code again....

[swissdiving]

...Acutally, I removed my initial comment as I see no point in continuing the discussion on whether there should be a Safety Stop CF or not...

[gorcio]

swissdiving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Acutally, I removed my initial comment as I see
> no point in continuing the discussion on whether
> there should be a Safety Stop CF or not...

Please read my first message in the topic, as well as my input to original topic on need of safety stop at all. I thought I was clear that I did not like that function at all. But I don't like even more when unwanted, undesired things get done in a wrong way - that's when you really speak about credibility etc. Wrong things done wrong. I am extremely disappointed that my english turned out to be so limited to be misunderstood. Need to work on it
And just to let you know - you are not the only one using brain, although it might not be that obvious for you.

[Commander]

I don´t see the problem to have a feature that probably lots of divers would like to have in their computer and lots don´t if the feature can be turned on or off in the CFs?? If it´s not there you are not able to turn it on and makes lots of divers sad. So what is the problem for the hater to turn that feature off? Does it hurts you if it´s in the computer but turned off?????

Best regards

Kai

[swissdiving]