Buhlmann Deco Software
Multi Deco looks to be what I'm after. It came as a bundle with V Planner.Lots of reading up to do now.There's a considerable difference in the user interfaces between the 'desktop' and tablet/phone versions of MultiDeco. The desktop versions (Mac and the other one) have additional functionality such as failed gas and +3 calculations.Both now come with 'max bottom time calculation given my SAC + remaining gas' calculations.Stick with Buhlmann / ZHL-16+GF. You don't need the VPM stuff except to play with.Have you decided on your gradient factor settings yet? Common nowadays is 50:80 which gets you out reliably and quickly (that's GF low = 50, GF high = 80). Deco for Divers uses 30/80 when explaining the process and, whilst not recommending these settings, does say that this is a popular starting point.GUE SOP use 25/85 and DecoPlanner.I'm going into the course with an open mind.I hadn't clicked that Multi Deco is a more developed version of V Planner.
I realised that the Perdix base algorithm is the ZHL model and V Planner the VPM, which is where my original question came from.V Planner was suggested by the Instructor.z planner is zhl, old program but still works and free if you can find a copy, no gf bollox, but you can bang a stop out when ever you feel like. All of the simulators agree 19' at 20m with GF80/80 is a no-deco dive. Since it.is. a no-deco dive GF low should make no difference at all yet, mysteriously, with GF30/80 gap diveplanner, pastodeco and mvplan claim two or three minutes of deco starting at 6m.Possibly not a biggy in this specific example but I believe that this is not a simple rounding or even calculation error, but an error in interpretation of the way gradient factors work.Would that not be expected with choosing a GF low of 30? All of the simulators agree 19' at 20m with GF80/80 is a no-deco dive. All of the simulators agree 19' at 20m with GF80/80 is a no-deco dive. Since it.is.
a no-deco dive GF low should make no difference at all yet, mysteriously, with GF30/80 gap diveplanner, pastodeco and mvplan claim two or three minutes of deco starting at 6m.Possibly not a biggy in this specific example but I believe that this is not a simple rounding or even calculation error, but an error in interpretation of the way gradient factors work.Hi,in a 20 meters/66feet air dive it's completely useless to set a GF Low.High conservatism is related to director gas in a mix. Typically the higher He% is, the higher conservatism you use.As you're French, please note that FFESSM/Marine Nationale MN90 tables decompression is almost equal to GF 90/90.Setting GF 30/80 or similar settings in a 20m air dive is a no sense.Bonnes bulles. Best fallout 4 alternate start mod. The fact is though that if different simulators can have such wildly different interpretations of the basics (these are not rounding errors we're talking about here), I really have to wonder what they're doing with the more delicate stuff.I've not found that myself despite using lots of different bits of software and various planning tools on various computers. The biggest factor for changing the results seems to be variations in the settings of the tool IME. As an example, one of them (might be an OSTC one) defaults to adding 1m to all depths when calculating.
Free orthodontic webinars. 2011 JCO Orthodontic Practice Study, Part 3: Practice Growth and Staff Data ROBERT G. KEIM DDS, EdD, PhD, EUGENE L. GOTTLIEB DDS, ALLEN H. NELSON PhD, DAVID S. VOGELS III In Part 1 of this series of articles on the 2011 JCO Orthodontic Practice Study (JCO, October 2011), we examined trends in orthodontic economics and practice administration. 2011 JCO ORTHODONTIC PRACTICE STUDY - COMPLETE TABLES. Subscribers can log in and download a PDF of this document. (It is about 57 pages long.) Excerpted material from the Practice Study is published as articles in the October-December 2011 and January 20. 536: CASE REPORT Effects of Herbst-Appliance Treatment on Pharyngeal Airway Depth. 2011 JCO Orthodontic Practice Study, Part 2: Net Income ROBERT G. KEIM DDS, EdD, PhD, EUGENE L. GOTTLIEB DDS, ALLEN H. NELSON PhD, DAVID S. Last month, the first article in this four-part series described trends in economics and administration over the 30 years of JCO Orthodontic Practice Studies.
But when the planners are all setup using the same models, the same GFs and so forth, the plans normally turn out to within about 1min of each other and given the conservatism introduced in the planning process, that's easily close enough. Although your interpretation of GF low is a common one, it does not appear to be coherent with Erik Baker's original Fortran code (which is really the closest thing available to a formal definition of gradient factors) or the OSTC planner code, neither of which take GF low into account until direct ascent to the surface at GF high has become impossible (ie. The dive is a deco dive).There are many attempts at making GF programs, but many fail to comply with the original code in some way.The gold standard of GF plans, is the GUE DecoPlanner program (not many planning features though). This was developed with some input and checking by Erik Baker, back when GF was new (90's), and is the same as the Fortran version. Our MultiDeco program will produce matching plans that are a perfect match, or very close to it.
Get the deco gas and do 1min loops at the stop depth until the ascent ceiling is equal to or less than this stop depth – 3 or the surface ambient pressure. The number of loops equals the length of the stop; If you haven’t reached the surface yet then repeat (6) but get a new deco gas and make the stop depth 3m shallower.
Click to expand.And if you read my post again, you'll see I never TOLD him to do anything.nor did I make any statements that one was inherently better. I said 'I MUCH prefer it to the DSAT algorithm despite it being more conservative.' That's right, I much prefer it. I said that if he had a Dual-Algo computer, he COULD switch to Z+ to see what Buhlmann was like. I never said one was absolutely better, just that I like one more and that he has the capability of trying an algorithm similar to the one being asked about. About a week ago was my last dive, dive buddy had a Suunto Soop, I dive the Mares Punk Pro, we did the same dives depth, both computers made the safety stops with some seconds diference I belive about 40sec his been earlier than mine.I will get a Suunto D4I novo as a christmas w since he is a Suunto distributor in europe and he get then very cheap, I honestly prefer more liberal DC, but I do love the looks of the D series, I still will dive with the two DC to compare and for redundancy, if I remember I will keep you informed if I do two dives in one day and see the difference between both.
ScubaBoard.comScubaBoard.com is the world's largest scuba diving online community.