Cobalt algorithm VS Oceanic algorithm

[bigdog66]

I just bought a Cobalt and both of my kids now have an Oceanic Veo 2.0. What Oceanic algorithm is compatible to Cobalt's moderate risk level?

 

[Agility]

IMHO none.

The Cobalt uses RGBM and the Veo either DSAT or Pelagic Z+
You might be able to find a setting that keeps these computers in sync for a single dive if you do not exceed recommended ascent rates but I think on repetitive dives they will show different NDL because of different impact of surface intervals.

 

[RonR]

You can use the simulator on the Cobalt to see what times will look like on a profile with any given settings. I don't know what the simulation capability is like on the Veo, but possibly their desktop software can provide planning options to look at so you can compare profiles of the type you will be diving. You're unlikely to find an exact match, but depending on the kind of diving you do they might not be very different either.

But understand that differences will look exaggerated on long, shallow dives. Don't be too concerned if you see differences in no-stop times of many minutes on 60- 70' dives.

Ron

I'll quote below from an answer I gave to a similar question:

How algorithms handle repetitive, multi-day, deeper than previous, deep stops, or if they are, like RGBM, oriented towards preventing bubble formation, all will create differing effects depending on the dive scenarios. There are too many variables to generalize- all I can say is that the root theory and calculations of all these algorithms are in the same arena- excepting that the Cobalt, if it goes deeper than 150', will use fully iterative RGBM, a much more computationally intensive bubble model. RGBM is not inherently any more or less conservative than any other algorithm, it really depends on the settings, both those selected by the diver and chosen by the manufacturer. The Cobalt is generally middle of the road for overall conservatism. But differences between computers often seem greater than they really are, particularly on shallower dives.


Conservatism in dive computers is hard to nail down, but differences between computers always tend to seem more extreme in shallower, longer dives, because we treat deco/ no deco as a binary function when in reality is is a gradually increasing slope- very gradually increasing at shallow depths. So on shallower dives even a slight divergence in the algorithm conservatism can translate into many minutes more or less of no-deco time. The same computers might show much less difference- in minutes of no-deco time- at deeper depths. That probably accounts for some of the subjective differences in experience of how conservative a particular computer is.


A lot of divers see no-stop limits as falling off a cliff. But it's a lot more like two hikers climbing a very gradually increasing slope, and deciding at what % grade to turn back. If one person decides to turn back at 30% and another at 32% grade, and they both head straight uphill, they will turn around at almost the same time. If they traverse the slope at a very shallow angle, the 30% hiker may turn around a long time before the 32% hiker. His turnaround point is no more conservative than it was going straight uphill, his risk no greater, but the difference in minutes between the two is greater because of the angle at which they approached the hill.