When setting saturation/desaturation settings on hwOS tech, the step size is 5%. However, when running hwOS sport, and choosing for example, conservatism +1 these values are 88/112 (verified this in the manual of the OSTC Sport, and by pulling the data info Subsurface).
So, now assume that I'm diving a hwOS tech, and my buddy a sport version, set in conservatism +1, and I like to have the same deco obligation. Due to the 5% step size, I'm not able to set the hwOS tech on the same sat/desat (88/112) values (on the device).
Obviously, we could use both normal gradient factors (as those have a step size of 1%), but that is not the point here.
I suggest that the step size is set to 1% instead of the current 5% for sat/desat settings.
hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
-
heinrichsweikamp
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: 13 May 2007, 18:07
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
Better set the hwOS sport unit to "Conservatism: GF" and set the GF pair manually in the hwOS sport. In the long run we'll remove the "conservatism setting" and only use the GF pair as the mode to select the conservatism.
regards,
Matthias
regards,
Matthias
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
Yes, that is even better. Conservatism also sounds too much like the conservatism
factor from VPM.
Does this also imply that the ZH-L16 algorithm is planned to go away? Including the sat/desat pairs?
--jan
factor from VPM.
Does this also imply that the ZH-L16 algorithm is planned to go away? Including the sat/desat pairs?
--jan
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
Hi Jan,
the ZH-L16 will never go away as it is the heart of the OSTC deco calculations. I doubt many people use the sat/desat factors to adjust their deco, giving favour to the GF factors. Anyhow, the sat/desat factors are also regarded when the OSTC calculates the surface interval, so they provide a means to do personal adjustents here where GFs aren't in the game.
I changed the step size from initially 10% down to 5% as 10% makes quite an impact, anyhow given the residual uncertaincies that are in any deco model, adjustments finer than 5% will probably have limited practical value.
BR
Ralph
the ZH-L16 will never go away as it is the heart of the OSTC deco calculations. I doubt many people use the sat/desat factors to adjust their deco, giving favour to the GF factors. Anyhow, the sat/desat factors are also regarded when the OSTC calculates the surface interval, so they provide a means to do personal adjustents here where GFs aren't in the game.
I changed the step size from initially 10% down to 5% as 10% makes quite an impact, anyhow given the residual uncertaincies that are in any deco model, adjustments finer than 5% will probably have limited practical value.
BR
Ralph
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
Hi Ralph,
> I changed the step size from initially 10% down to 5% as 10% makes quite an impact, anyhow given the residual uncertaincies that are in any deco model, adjustments finer than 5% will probably have limited practical value.
I agree fully on the limited practical value part from a deco perspective. The same argument can be used for setting of any GF factors that is in 1% steps right now.
My main point is consistency of the user interface, and logical relation to the documentation (user manual). When the manual shows 88/112 as a sat/desat pair, and the user can (implicitly) set it to that using the proper conservatism (ok, Matthias says that this will go away in the future), it is simply inconsistent that the user can not set these values manually.
This all said. I think you are also right that a very limited amount of users will use sat/desat pairs over GF factors, so this is simply not a big deal.
> I changed the step size from initially 10% down to 5% as 10% makes quite an impact, anyhow given the residual uncertaincies that are in any deco model, adjustments finer than 5% will probably have limited practical value.
I agree fully on the limited practical value part from a deco perspective. The same argument can be used for setting of any GF factors that is in 1% steps right now.
My main point is consistency of the user interface, and logical relation to the documentation (user manual). When the manual shows 88/112 as a sat/desat pair, and the user can (implicitly) set it to that using the proper conservatism (ok, Matthias says that this will go away in the future), it is simply inconsistent that the user can not set these values manually.
This all said. I think you are also right that a very limited amount of users will use sat/desat pairs over GF factors, so this is simply not a big deal.
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
Yeah, and the preset number pairs will go away soon anyhow, as we'll branch off a new Sport version from the next stable Tech firmware to come...
-R.
-R.
Re: hwOS: sport vs tech saturation/desaturation step size
I was seeing similar behaviour and that led me to find this post, using the advice I found in this thread (https://forum.heinrichsweikamp.com/read.php?6,20642) I found that my conservatism being set on 0 was not what I wanted, I actually wanted this set to conservatism = GF. This makes the new OSTS Plus with the sport firmware behave much more like the older OSTC Mk.2 that I have.