Re: [PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:41:03PM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > 2015-08-17 17:54 GMT+02:00 Robert C. Helling : > > Hi, > > > > On 17 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Rick Walsh wrote: > > > > Which approach is more justified? Debatable. The method used by Subsurface > > should be 'better', but when the depth

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi Robert, On 18 August 2015 at 02:43, Robert C. Helling wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:41, Jan Darowski wrote: > > 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 m

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

> On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:41, Jan Darowski wrote: > > 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. It’s just that I hav

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

DIrk, > On 15 Aug 2015, at 16:11, Jan Darowski wrote: > > Here is my next pull request, this is definitely progress and nothing is obviously wrong (modulo what was said in this thread, so please pull: ACK by me. There are some things to work on, but this gets easier, once this code is in ma

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

2015-08-17 17:54 GMT+02:00 Robert C. Helling : > Hi, > > On 17 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Rick Walsh 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 B

[PATCH] Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi,On 17 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Rick Walsh 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 s

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On 18 Aug 2015 12:13 am, "Jan Darowski" wrote: > > > I think I've worked out at least one difference in the programs' algorithms, > > and sorry I doubt you'll like it. Subsurface calculates required stops > > considering the ascent rate and the time to reach the stop. The Fortran > > program cal

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

> I think I've worked out at least one difference in the programs' algorithms, > and sorry I doubt you'll like it. Subsurface calculates required stops > considering the ascent rate and the time to reach the stop. The Fortran > program calculates the 'instantaneous' ceiling, i.e. the depth corres

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi Jan, On 17 August 2015 at 20:59, Rick Walsh wrote: > > > On 17 August 2015 at 19:46, Jan Darowski wrote: > >> > I think that currently first_stop is being calculated for each stop (so >> > isn't actually first_stop) rather than just the first. That's what it >> > looked like from my limited

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On 17 August 2015 at 19:46, Jan Darowski wrote: > > I think that currently first_stop is being calculated for each stop (so > > isn't actually first_stop) rather than just the first. That's what it > > looked like from my limited running under gdb with a break every time > > first_stop is calcul

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

> I think that currently first_stop is being calculated for each stop (so > isn't actually first_stop) rather than just the first. That's what it > looked like from my limited running under gdb with a break every time > first_stop is calculated, and printing the depth variable. > > To calculate th

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi Jan, On 17 Aug 2015 12:32 am, "Jan Darowski" wrote: > > Hi, > > > I've looked at and tested your latest series of VPM-B commits. From what I > > can see, it looks like it's doing the correct thing, except that > > first_stop_pressure is reset to zero every iteration, so it then gets set > > e

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On 08/15/2015 04:11 PM, Jan Darowski wrote: VPM-B: Add simple Boyle's law compensation. This is a very basic implementation that uses bin search for solving the cubic. Why do you iterate to some imprecise numerical solution when you can compute the root precisely, algebraicly, withou

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi, > I've looked at and tested your latest series of VPM-B commits. From what I > can see, it looks like it's doing the correct thing, except that > first_stop_pressure is reset to zero every iteration, so it then gets set > each stop (rather than just at the first stop) before running the Boyle

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi Jan, On 16 August 2015 at 00:11, Jan Darowski wrote: > Hi! > Here is my next pull request, it adds all the remaining vpm-b > elements. What is left to code is some way of logged dives rating > against vpm-b and probably some fixes. > > I've looked at and tested your latest series of VPM-B com

[PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi! Here is my next pull request, it adds all the remaining vpm-b elements. What is left to code is some way of logged dives rating against vpm-b and probably some fixes. The following changes since commit 342479586d1f34a2b7f3d1d69037cb0d631489fa: Planner: use the heap for note buffers (2015-0

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

No problem, but before that I want to check one place I suspect can be wrong... 2015-07-07 21:33 GMT+02:00 Dirk Hohndel : > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 09:29:19PM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: >> I think I will check all the units once again. But it's true that it's >> another mistake on the deepocean.ne

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 09:29:19PM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > I think I will check all the units once again. But it's true that it's > another mistake on the deepocean.net > The real values are 0.257 N/m and 0.0179 N/m (paper by Baker confirms) > but these constants are always (that's what I will

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

I think I will check all the units once again. But it's true that it's another mistake on the deepocean.net The real values are 0.257 N/m and 0.0179 N/m (paper by Baker confirms) but these constants are always (that's what I will check again) in the context like: pressure + skin_compression / radiu

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:41:56PM +1000, Rick Walsh wrote: > Dirk, Jan, > > On 5 July 2015 at 23:56, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:27:23AM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was > > > reorganized fro

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Dirk, Jan, On 5 July 2015 at 23:56, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:27:23AM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was > > reorganized from scratch, the final code is almost the same. > > I like the patches much be

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:27:23AM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > Hi, > Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was > reorganized from scratch, the final code is almost the same. I like the patches much better. I agree with Robert that you could have squashed a couple togeth

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 07:23:12PM +1000, Rick Walsh wrote: > I multiplied 7500 fsw by 0.304 (feet to metres) divided by 10 (metres salt > water to ata) and multipled by 1.01325 (ata to bar). > 7500 * 0.304 / 10 * 1.01353 = 231.021 bar > > It's close, but I think my conversion was very slightly ou

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 10:29:17AM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > Thanks for checking it. > > > But then I checked the configuration parameters adopted, and there are > > differences. I altered vpmb_config to match what was used in the Fortran > > code. > > critical radius of N2 was 0.6, changed to

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi Robert, On 4 July 2015 at 19:25, Robert C. Helling wrote: > > > What I am a bit puzzled about are the „conservatism“ factors some other > programs offer. I have no idea which parameters those affect but that is > another thing to investigate. > > > HHS Software (V-Planner/Multideco) have def

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi, > On 04 Jul 2015, at 00:27, Jan Darowski wrote: > > Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was > reorganized from scratch, the final code is almost the same. I expect I have some time tonight to review those. Best Robert signature.asc Description: Message signe

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi, > On 04 Jul 2015, at 10:29, Jan Darowski wrote: > > I guess I need to implement Boyle's law as soon as possible and only > test against > the original fortran code... just a brief comment: Indeed testing against other code is quite essential (not only since our software might be giving lif

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi, > On 04 Jul 2015, at 11:23, Rick Walsh wrote: > > I multiplied 7500 fsw by 0.304 (feet to metres) divided by 10 (metres salt > water to ata) and multipled by 1.01325 (ata to bar). > 7500 * 0.304 / 10 * 1.01353 = 231.021 bar > > It's close, but I think my conversion was very slightly out, a

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi, On 4 July 2015 at 18:29, Jan Darowski wrote: > > eh... from deepocean.net: "7500 fsw min = 250 bar min" > It's not the first mistake I found there. And it seems that the author > of existing > c code based his implementation on this site also. > > I multiplied 7500 fsw by 0.304 (feet to metr

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Thanks for checking it. > But then I checked the configuration parameters adopted, and there are > differences. I altered vpmb_config to match what was used in the Fortran > code. > critical radius of N2 was 0.6, changed to 0.8 microns > critical radius of He was 0.5, changed to 0.7 microns > cri

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi Jan, On 4 July 2015 at 08:27, Jan Darowski wrote: > Hi, > Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was > reorganized from scratch, the final code is almost the same. > > I tried your VPM patch set. I haven't worked through the logic of the code or looked at individual

[PULL REQUEST] VPM-B Attempt 2.

Hi, Here is another pull request. I hope now it's better. Everything was reorganized from scratch, the final code is almost the same. The following changes since commit 5ae5aedab3b628ad04abc435ce3b06c3612d4d6c: Add FAQ item about creating a udev rule for Cobalt under Linux (2015-07-02 12:26:1

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi, here is the link to the results of some tests I did. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jrafQsE9bwHLszJadYzRlD2zBD57UB7TIAh2Xz0o-XQ/edit?usp=sharing Some comments: As you can see the are some cases when results differ. Test 4: starting gradients are the same, final gradients differ a lot.

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Thanks for the hint! -- Jan Darowski ___ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On 30 Jun 2015 10:01 p.m., "Robert C. Helling" wrote: > I second all of Dirk’s suggestions (of course, how could I?) and should maybe point out (as I learned this only very recently) that > > git rebase —interactive > > and > > git add -p > > are both extremely useful when rewriting history in ord

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Dirk: fine, I agree that these commits aren't of the highest quality. One of the reasons is that this work is based in huge part on the existing implementation which I had to discover part by part and which has a lot of strange solutions (including units and constants scaled all the time). The othe

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi Jan, > On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:38, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > Jan, thanks for sending this. I have asked Robert to look at the code from > the algorithmic side, but let me give you some general feedback in > addition to the comments that I made on github: I have pulled your patches and now looked

Re: [PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Jan Darowski wrote: > Hi, here is the request for the basic vpm algorithm. Right now it > doesn't include Boyle's law compensation so the deco plans it > generates can be too short in some situations. Jan, thanks for sending this. I have asked Robert to lo

[PULL REQUEST] VPM-B

Hi, here is the request for the basic vpm algorithm. Right now it doesn't include Boyle's law compensation so the deco plans it generates can be too short in some situations. The following changes since commit f763da66b3db17347954272b9f856df6f8b9888d: Implement planner option to switch only a