Deco Software

[PfcAJ]

If your buddy isn’t willing to stick with you on deco (for whatever reason), invoke Option Number 1.

 

[taimen]

Really? I haven't seen this.

Good for you I have. I don't want to be a diving police so I try to adapt. Perfect teams are hard to find so often options are to adapt or not dive at all.
I met a diver on a 45m ean50 accelerated deco dive whose plan was to carry two computers. A Suunto rgbm and a perdix with buhlmann. And he did all the stops either one of his computers was telling him to do. Now that would be difficult to adapt to when planning, especially as he didn't want to or was unable to tell which gradient factors or conservatism he was using.

 

[KenGordon]

Good for you I have. I don't want to be a diving police so I try to adapt. Perfect teams are hard to find so often options are to adapt or not dive at all.
I met a diver on a 45m ean50 accelerated deco dive whose plan was to carry two computers. A Suunto rgbm and a perdix with buhlmann. And he did all the stops either one of his computers was telling him to do. Now that would be difficult to adapt to when planning, especially as he didn't want to or was unable to tell which gradient factors or conservatism he was using.

If I am diving OC that is what I do. It is not hard, you plan the dive with MultiDeco and DM5, notice that one will give deeper stops (the GF one probably) and one a longer final stop. Either is an ok profile and worst way (for example in an OOG emergency) you’d get out on the shorter one and bend the other.

 

[Parklander]

All good and interesting information here. To answer one part of your question, the software may allow for options in configurability of the profile, but typically when I am planning a dive with others we all use the software we prefer but agree on some parameters. Those are desired run time, gradient factors, decompression model and depth/location/purpose. I personally like MultiDeco while my Mac friends like iDeco. I actually think iDeco is more straightforward. So we all plan to determine best profile and then discuss to all get on the same page. It’s a good check and balance. We all dive “together” but really individually. Hopefully this helps.

 

[boulderjohn]

Good for you I have. I don't want to be a diving police so I try to adapt. Perfect teams are hard to find so often options are to adapt or not dive at all.
I met a diver on a 45m ean50 accelerated deco dive whose plan was to carry two computers. A Suunto rgbm and a perdix with buhlmann. And he did all the stops either one of his computers was telling him to do. Now that would be difficult to adapt to when planning, especially as he didn't want to or was unable to tell which gradient factors or conservatism he was using.

The ascent is not going to go back and forth between algorithms, and you should know which one will be the one controlling the dive. You should thus be able to plan your dive accordingly.

 

[taimen]

The ascent is not going to go back and forth between algorithms, and you should know which one will be the one controlling the dive. You should thus be able to plan your dive accordingly

Yes, in this particular case it will be Suunto controlling the ascent most of the time, except my preference for 30/70 or 40/80 may extend the last stop somewhat longer.
Anyway I think this kind of fiddling is far from unified team approach.
And personally I don't really understand the reasoning behind using several algoritms to guide a single dive.
Carrying a Suunto naturally means you must obey it to prevent error mode.

 

[taimen]

If I am diving OC that is what I do. It is not hard, you plan the dive with MultiDeco and DM5, notice that one will give deeper stops (the GF one probably) and one a longer final stop. Either is an ok profile and worst way (for example in an OOG emergency) you’d get out on the shorter one and bend the other.

I ask out of curiosity and honestly not trying to argue.
What is the advantage you gain by using several algorithms during one dive? Other than being able to use another computer you happen to own as a backup?
How do you discuss, communicate and agree this as a team? Do you decide beforehand which one is the primary and which on is an emergency plan. Do all of your team members have the same set of algorithms in their computers or are all others adapting to your method?
Is there some theoretical or experimental support for the idea that a shorter ascent with a deep stop profile is safer than cutting the final longer stop in an emergency situation?

 

[RyanT]

What is the advantage you gain by using several algorithms during one dive? Other than being able to use another computer you happen to own as a backup?

There is no advantage; I would never run two computers (in computer mode) with different algorithms. I have a puck computer...no idea what algorithm it uses. It goes in gauge mode to be used with a pre-made run schedule in the event that my Shearwater dies.

 

[Parklander]

It is common practice to alter gradient factors on ascent. Using multiple deco models during a dive would melt my brain.

 

[Parklander]

Oh, Ryan, you should investigate the model your computer uses. Some are not as much in favor any longer and it is a very interesting subject of the sport. It’s good to know who’s model your are trusting with your life.

Many computers also let your choose your deco model.

Oh, and Ryan, this is actually not directed at you but just an in-general thought. I know you meant the puck vs. the Shearwater.