New Diver, New Computer

[Oldbear]

I have five Zoops that I let my students use. It is a very easy computer to use. The battery can be changed by the user. It is very basic without a lot bells and whistles.

Dave of Welly says in his profile he has less than 25 dives and this is his first computer. I would not get overwhelmed my algorithms as a new diver you focus should be on gaining dive experience and not worried about a few plus/minus mere minutes of NDL.

I regularly compare the NDL of my Zoops with the NDL of my Petrel (in OC Rec mode) and as a conservative dive the differences are not that extreme.

 

[Goingforsound]

The ScubaLab testing is not worthless. Multiple recreational dives are simulated in a hyperbaric chamber. This is one of the few objective examples of the performance of these computers in repetitive diving and trumps any anecdotal experience .

That is why i like the test. Pure unbiased results with a wide range of computers.

While in real life the leonardo might not limit a diver at all, the test proves me that its not the average in term of conservatism.

Especialy the fact that it becomes problematic toward the 4th dive. If you only dive 2-3 dives per day it might be totally fine.

And i also agree that the 4 dives are more deep than i usually do in a day... If i do a 100ft dive on a wall, chances are i'll be in shallower depth for the rest of the day.

 

[Tbar]

Especialy the fact that it becomes problematic toward the 4th dive. If you only dive 2-3 dives per day it might be totally fine.

This test does not simulate a "normal" suite of dives. On dive trips it is reasonable to do 4 dives a day, but they will be spread over 10 to 12 hours. The test simulates the 4 dives in just over 5 hours, dramatically reducing Surface time. By doing this the test is flawed. But all the computers still managed those 'dives'.

 

[Goingforsound]

I agree its pretty dramatic dive day they simulated. It is still showing the large difference in the algorythm which i find interesting!

 

[scubadada]

This test does not simulate a "normal" suite of dives. On dive trips it is reasonable to do 4 dives a day, but they will be spread over 10 to 12 hours. The test simulates the 4 dives in just over 5 hours, dramatically reducing Surface time. By doing this the test is flawed. But all the computers still managed those 'dives'.

No, this is a pretty average day of 4 boat dives. There is a 1 hour surface interval between dives 1 and 2 and between dives 3 and 4. There is a 2 hour surface interval between dives 2 and 3, presumably, including lunch. If all the dives were about 1 hour, that would make for at least a 9 hour day, including some short travel time for the boat to and from the diving sites. I frequently have dive days just like this, sometimes the SIs are a little shorter, frequently, the dives are a little longer. This makes a dive day from 8 AM to 5 PM, or a little later, not at all unusual.

As I pointed out in my previous post, I actually find the dive profiles pretty conservative. They did not push the DSAT algorithm at all, I often do. If they would have, they would have put some of the other computers into deco, not what they wanted to show in a test of recreational dive computers.

Good diving, Craig

 

[dave of welly]

Wow..

Sorry for a slightly delayed reply (work seems to get in the way)

Theres a lot of information in this thread and big words and acronyms to digest, I've also looked at a few other reviews and "price compares"

At this stage I am leaning more towards the Mares Puck Pro.

Purely based on price as I have found a brand new one for sale for 200nzd which will save me a couple hundred on bringing in a Suunto or other model.

As alluded to in my profile. I am very new to diving with only a handful of dives and I think i may have been over complicating things at this early point.

For my diving at the moment would only be 4 dives over a weekend period and maybe one dive mid week (as a night dive during our winter months) and the Mares seems to be suitable

Thank you all for your help.

Dave

 

[dmaziuk]

I agree its pretty dramatic dive day they simulated. It is still showing the large difference in the algorythm which i find interesting!

Actually, no. They were not testing algorithms, they were testing computers. The difference is nobody knows what the expletive "RGBM" computers zoop, leonardo, puck are actually running, with very few people even understanding RGBM to begin with. On top of that vendors tend to add "conservatism" penalties for who knows what they consider suboptimal behaviours: we assume these include fast ascents, short safety stops, but who knows what's really lurking in there.

PS. Their plots look like they blown ascent rates on dives 1, 2, 4, and the 2nd half of dive 3, which is precisely what bubble-formation models should penalize for. I wonder what a dive planner would show for these profiles on VPM-B or even just Buhlmann w/ 30/70 GF.

 

[Oldbear]

Wow..

Sorry for a slightly delayed reply (work seems to get in the way)

Theres a lot of information in this thread and big words and acronyms to digest, I've also looked at a few other reviews and "price compares"

At this stage I am leaning more towards the Mares Puck Pro.

Purely based on price as I have found a brand new one for sale for 200nzd which will save me a couple hundred on bringing in a Suunto or other model.

As alluded to in my profile. I am very new to diving with only a handful of dives and I think i may have been over complicating things at this early point.

For my diving at the moment would only be 4 dives over a weekend period and maybe one dive mid week (as a night dive during our winter months) and the Mares seems to be suitable

Thank you all for your help.

Dave

Dave,

Stop working so much and get to diving more...

I think the Mare Puck Pro will be a great first dive computer. Now go get it wet and blow some bubbles.

~Oldbear~

 

[Tbar]

I agree with Oldbear. Go diving...

Often there is way to much time spent decided the 'best' option when most in practice will be fine and are being used by thousands around the world. Goes for all gear not just computers.

 

[scubadada]

Actually, no. They were not testing algorithms, they were testing computers. The difference is nobody knows what the expletive "RGBM" computers zoop, leonardo, puck are actually running, with very few people even understanding RGBM to begin with. On top of that vendors tend to add "conservatism" penalties for who knows what they consider suboptimal behaviours: we assume these include fast ascents, short safety stops, but who knows what's really lurking in there.

PS. Their plots look like they blown ascent rates on dives 1, 2, 4, and the 2nd half of dive 3, which is precisely what bubble-formation models should penalize for. I wonder what a dive planner would show for these profiles on VPM-B or even just Buhlmann w/ 30/70 GF.

The maximum ascent rates are stated and varied from 18-28 ft/min. I don't think this accounts for the performance of the Suunto, Mares, and Cressi computers