I am writing my own deco software as an exercise in better understanding the theories behind neo-Haldanean and Bubble based decompression. As such, I have elected to compare the output of my code, based on Erik Baker's FORTRAN code, to commercially available decompression software packages such as DecoPlanner, V-planner, and GAP. This gives me two neo-Haldanean models and three Bubble models to compare with the output of my code. During testing of some rather unique profiles to check the different parts of my code, I came across an anomaly in DecoPlanner.
The profile consists of 20 minutes at 300', 20 minutes at 150' (intentionally violating the calculated ceiling to force the program to insert deco stops), and finally 20 minutes at 200' all using 12/60, before beginning the final ascent and deco. Deco gasses are 35/25 at 120', 50% at 70', and 100% at 20'. Descent rate is 75 fpm and ascent rate is 30 fpm for the whole dive, last stop at 10'.
DecoPlanner gives a total run time of 199 minutes. GAP's run time is 248 minutes. My program's run time is 263 minutes. All three are utilizing Buhlmann's ZHL-16 with GF 30/85.
Comparing the Bubble models, DecoPlanner's run time is 215 minutes, V-planner's is 213 minutes, GAP's is 214 minutes. I don't have my VPM-B implementation fully working yet. VPM-B (or RGBM in the case of GAP) with standard values and Conservatism +2 (12% increase in critical radii).
My concern is the significant difference between DecoPlanner and GAP (~20%). I know why I have a ~6% difference between GAP and my program -- GAP does not re-compute Gradient Factors when a descent is in between two ascents; my program does (as does DecoPlanner). The close precision (~0.5%) of all three Bubble models makes me think there might be something in DecoPlanner that needs to be addressed.