+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

  1. #31
    RBW Member michael-fisch is on a distinguished road michael-fisch is on a distinguished road michael-fisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    331
    SF2, IDA76, Flex

    AH1

    Re: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

    Quote Originally Posted by michael-fisch  View Original Post
    Downloaded Gas mixer with Scubatanks . Nice and simple as long as you are working with psi. Unfortunately I blend in metric units and was unable to find out how to switch gas mixer over metric units. Wasting €2.17 won't break the bank but it was a waste of money.

    Metric Gas Blending app for Anderoid needed, with editible fields, easy to use when I'm stuck filling 15 to 20 stages and a shitload of diluent tanks.

    Michael
    Found out how to switch to metric units and the software works. removing the numeric contents of a field in order to enter my own values still is a long way from comfortable. I guess that I'm still spoiled by Phi Le's Decoweenie and Orgasm that he wrote for use on Palms 15 years ago. Not everything that is new is as good as what it was supposed to replace.

    Michael

  2. #32
    RBW Member michael-fisch is on a distinguished road michael-fisch is on a distinguished road michael-fisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    331
    SF2, IDA76, Flex

    AH1

    Re: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

    Quote Originally Posted by Eunjae  View Original Post
    Did you try CCR mixer? Very easy to use and running fast on my android phone.
    Ej.
    I'll download it tomorrow and give it an honest try, right now I'm too upset with the other software that I tried and found to be unusable and nowhere near as good as software that was written 15-20 years ago.

  3. #33

    Re: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethanoln  View Original Post
    Hi

    I downloaded and had a quick look at the current OSX version again.

    The application is still defaulting to ZH-L16A.
    As noted a couple of months ago, this version of the Buhlman algorithm is NOT intended/safe for diving.

    The B version is intended for cutting tables and the C version is intended for realtime deco in computers. The A version is purely of historical interest.
    Hi,

    Yes the application still defaulting to ZH-L16A.
    Yes, Buhlmann algorithm ZH-L16A is not intendend/safe for diving.

    BUT

    there are 3 Buhlmann ZH-L16 algotithms in PastoDeco ( ZH-L16A, ZH-L16B, ZH-L16C ) and
    any of actual availables softwares uses a "pure Buhlmann" models.
    All actual softwares I know, including PastoDeco, uses a "modified" Buhlmann algorithm, with Erik Baker's gradient factors that adds a very huge extra safety margins to original Buhlmann algorithm. So PastoDeco DONT USES PURE BUHLMANN ALGORITHM.

    When you say that PastoDeco uses a unsafe Buhlmann ZH-16A this is wrong, because PastoDeco, like others Buhlmann based softwares DONT uses this model.

    So, to explain using an example, if you plan a dive at 90 meters, 20 min, 12/60 OC, with EAN 50 + OXY deco stages you have the followings results:

    ORIGINAL PURE BUHLMANN ZH-L16A MODEL: RunTime 89'
    ZH-L16A With GF's 15-85: RunTime 146' (57 min extra deco safety =+64% )
    ZH-L16C GF's 15-85: RunTime 148' ( 2 min more extra safety deco time + 1.4% )
    DecoPlanner using GF's 15-85: RunTime 143'
    V-Planner Cons +2: Runtime 144'

    Why this dive calculated with PastoDeco, runtime 146' is unsafe when the same dive, calculated with V-Planner gives 144' deco time or DecoPlanner 143' deco time is more safe???

    Are 2 minutes difference between A and C tables very significant compared to +57 min extra deco time applied by GF'S ?

    Note that PastoDeco gives 57 minutes more deco time that original Buhlmann ZH-L16A algorithm, intended purely of historical interest. So, as you can see, is not at all the same algorithm.

    Note that, all softwares adds some extra undocumented safety factors to original models.
    Last edited by TheSnake; 6th August 2015 at 19:45.

  4. #34

    Re: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

    Quote Originally Posted by michael-fisch  View Original Post
    I just downloaded PastoBlend off the Google Apps store. Aftert spending a half hour trying to get into the settings fields to change the gas prices I will shitcan the Software and will never install either Pastoblend or PastoDeco on one of my mobile phones again.
    Editing the contents of a field on a 4.5" (Samsung Galaxy S3) Mobile Phone is an exercise in futility.

    I'm sure that it works better with a keyboard, mouse and 32" Monitor at 1920x1080 resolution but it's unusable on a mobile phone.

    Michael
    Tried it on very small display device ( iPhone4 ), on a old samsung tablet, some samsung smartphones, and on a 7' very low-cost (45€ ) Lazer tablet and it work fine.

  5. #35
    RBW Member Ethanoln is an unknown quantity at this point Ethanoln's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Norway, Bergen
    Posts
    11
    Megaladon 2.7

    1

    Re: PastoDeco 2.8.2 tech dive planner available

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSnake  View Original Post
    Hi,

    Yes the application still defaulting to ZH-L16A.
    Yes, Buhlmann algorithm ZH-L16A is not intendend/safe for diving.

    BUT

    there are 3 Buhlmann ZH-L16 algotithms in PastoDeco ( ZH-L16A, ZH-L16B, ZH-L16C ) and
    any of actual availables softwares uses a "pure Buhlmann" models.
    All actual softwares I know, including PastoDeco, uses a "modified" Buhlmann algorithm, with Erik Baker's gradient factors that adds a very huge extra safety margins to original Buhlmann algorithm. So PastoDeco DONT USES PURE BUHLMANN ALGORITHM.

    When you say that PastoDeco uses a unsafe Buhlmann ZH-16A this is wrong, because PastoDeco, like others Buhlmann based softwares DONT uses this model.

    So, to explain using an example, if you plan a dive at 90 meters, 20 min, 12/60 OC, with EAN 50 + OXY deco stages you have the followings results:

    ORIGINAL PURE BUHLMANN ZH-L16A MODEL: RunTime 89'
    ZH-L16A With GF's 15-85: RunTime 146' (57 min extra deco safety =+64% )
    ZH-L16C GF's 15-85: RunTime 148' ( 2 min more extra safety deco time + 1.4% )
    DecoPlanner using GF's 35-85: RunTime 143'
    V-Planner Cons +2: Runtime 144'

    Why this dive calculated with PastoDeco, runtime 146' is unsafe when the same dive, calculated with V-Planner gives 144' deco time or DecoPlanner 143' deco time is more safe???

    Are 2 minutes difference between A and C tables very significant compared of +57 min extra deco time applied by GF'S ?

    Note that PastoDeco gives 57 minutes more deco time that original Buhlmann ZH-L16A algorithm, intended purely of historical interest. So, as you can see, is not at all the same algorithm.

    Note that, all softwares adds some extra undocumented safety factors to original models.
    The question remains, why should the software default to the least suitable of the three Buhlmann variants when all three are implemented?
    Why not do "novice" divers, the ones who are recommended to not fiddle with the settings until they understand their decompression theory, a favour and make B the default? This is the variant that is intended for cutting tables after all.

    GF has nothing todo with this basic question, it will "soften" the schedules of any flavour of buhlmann and others who use a concept like the M values.
    Last edited by Ethanoln; 6th August 2015 at 19:55.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts