Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?

[BoltSnap]

The wants vs. the needs according to Andy would make us all be like this with no exception:

 

[Jax]

You can't just slap AI onto an existing design.

You cannot? Why not? It does not have to be integrated to the computer dive functions - if a transmitter quits, the Sol or Luna operation is unhampered.

The AI just gathers more information. The dive functions of the computer absolutely should be unaffected by the AI.

 

[DevonDiver]

The wants vs. the needs according to Andy would make us all be like this with no exception:

Since when was technical diving an instrument of personal expression?

Applying a set of principles, that arose through accident investigation and a desire to mitigate known risks, is about survival. That sounds dramatic, but we're talking about technical diving, not recreational diving.

Technical diving is an exercise in safety, not individuality.

Apply core principles to any activity and you get a base-line of necessary functionality, less superficial or unnecessary variations.

If someone doesn't agree with the principles of technical diving, then it's worth considering whether technical diving is the right activity for them to engage in. It's not for everyone.... and there are many things that someone can do as a diver instead of technical diving. That's not being judgmental... because I don't think anyone has to be a technical diver; or that not being a technical diver makes you anything less, or inferior. There are many truly excellent divers who don't do technical diving.

But if someone does want to engage in technical diving; the starting point is to accept the principles and mindset that underpin personal and team safety.

Technical diving is increasingly becoming more 'mainstream'. It's more accessible, more marketed, more known about. Once upon a time there were a 'hard-core' of technical divers/instructors.... nowadays every PADI shop is putting up 'TecRec' posters and open-water instructors are signing up for their 2-week 'zero-to-hero' tech instructor (or instructor trainer!) courses... there are 'occasional' tech divers that just do some tech dives once per year etc etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing...but, of course, it can easily lead to a dissolution of standards. People are entering the tech diving community...as divers and instructors... without really understanding the mindset and principle.

More importantly, they don't understand why that mindset and those principles exist. They are still, in spirit, recreational divers and exhibit a recreational diving mindset. Safety and survival concerns get mocked.... because that's how it is in recreational diving. The principles get questioned... or laughed at. The 'worst case scenario' is forgotten... because the recreational diver assumes nothing can go wrong... so why not deviate from these 'old fashioned' and 'restrictive' guidelines?

 

[gcarter]

To everyone saying "I want a petrel for a progression to tech, but I use AI now"

Well use an SPG. It'll ease your transition to tech.

Failure of a dive computer isn't life critical if you have a back up comp/timer and printed schedule.

Failure of an AI transmitter attached to the HP port reduces my available gas.

That's the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As can failure of a SPG attached to a HP port. This is not a valid argument.

Having a backup SPG to an AI creating a second failure point is a valid argument.

 

[kelemvor]

I think the truth behind much of this is that some tec. divers want the tec. diving community to be Shearwater's only child, don't want a separate rec. diving community sibling, and both in these and past threads the contention that A.I. would introduce an unacceptable potential failure point & render the product potentially unreliable is a red herring rationalization in the service of the true agenda.

I can relate. I was an only child, and from early on unequivocally did not want a sibling.

Richard.

It's a little late, since Shearwater already has recreational mode on 100% of their current products. Even the NERD has it.

It's kind of funny, tech divers naysaying a recreational feature in this thread. When a newly minted diver posts asking what DC to get, everyone tells them "get a shearwater and use OC Rec mode." I guess I'm easily amused.

 

[stuartv]

I firmly believe that, one day, technological advances like AI will be standard in technical diving. But, to date, I don't see that the equipment technology level is successful in simplifying the processes of technical diving. AI adds complexity to the processes and protocols of tech diving, and increases failure risks, for the spurious benefit of a minor convenience.

What I've tried to do in this, and other, threads is simply educate recreational divers on the mindset of technical divers - whereby a minor convenience (a 'want') is largely irrelevant in comparison to applying principles ('needs') of simplicity, life support redundancy and reliability.

In all honesty, adding AI to a Shearwater would have little impact on a technical diver who choose not to use it. There might be more complexity to the menu architecture and a price increase. As a technical diver, my rationalization is that some drawbacks versus no benefits is a bad trade-off. So that's what drives my opinion.

If Shearwater intends to create dedicated technical diving instruments, then adding AI is a departure from their intentions. If, however, they saw benefit in creating more general diving instruments, with a wider spectrum of features that appealed to a wider demographic of (recreational) divers, then AI would be one of many functions they could consider adding.

All I can say is that with the Predator and Petrel they got the balance just right for technical diving. Changing that formula might have a negative impact on their perceived desirability in the tech community.

Personally, I can see that recreational divers have very little 'need' for many of the functions and features they profess to 'want'. There are also many, many recreational diving computers on the market. In contrast, there are very few dedicated technical diving computers in production. Until now, I've seen no real justification for watering down a market-leading niche product just to satisfy the wants and whims of divers that product (... the company) never sought to appeal to.

Everyone seems to agree that having an instrument to tell you your tank pressure is a "need". Even though divers (like my dad) went many years diving doubles and doing deco with no SPG at all. My dad did it by always keeping one tank turned off. When the one that was turned on started to run out, he'd open the valve on the other tank, let them equalize, and then shut the valve off again. And he'd know he was then down to 1/2 a tank. Or 1/4 tank. Or whatever, depending on how many times he'd done it. If there is someone still diving like that today, they could argue just as well that having any SPG is an unnecessary failure point.

Once you accept that you are going to have an SPG, you can go with a physical one. It will have a potential failure point where it screws into the 1st stage. The HP hose is another failure point. The point where the gauge attaches to the HP hose is another failure point with 2 O-rings in there on the spool, either of which could fail. And there's all the mechanical innards inside the gauge itself that are potential failure points. Personally, I had a nearly new SPG on my doubles reg set. I had about 5 or 6 dives on it when I went out to my local quarry for some dives. I assembled my rig and turned on the gas. Everything seemed okay. I started to walk back over to my truck when I heard a pop and hissing. I shut my valves off and found the problem. The SPG had been gradually coming unscrewed from the HP hose. I got very lucky in that it unthreaded just enough to let one of the spool O-rings pop while I was still gearing up. Much nicer than if it had waited until I was in the water.

It seems to me that in terms of failures that would cause you to actually lose gas, a physical SPG seems more likely to have that kind of failure than an AI transmitter that threads into the 1st stage and only has 1 O-ring to be concerned about.

Anyway, regarding Shearwater and their dedicated technical computers, well, I think others have already made the point. When Shearwater added their OC Rec mode, they already invested in pursuing the Recreational market. The Petrel is already that "watered down" computer you were speaking of. The justification is money - i.e. increased sales. Fortunately, it's not irrevocably watered down. It's just a few button pushes away from being back to fully featured.

But, since they already invested the money to make it into a Recreational computer, why stop halfway? There is a clear market demand for Rec computers to have an AI option.

 

[Stoo]

Serious tech divers just don't want AI. It offers no benefit in safety and simplicity. It does cause procedural and protocol issues; such as gas analysis, gas input and gas switching. It adds links to the accident chain that don't need to be there.

This. Pretty much by definition, tech diving involves multiple gasses and I don't see AI working in that scenario. Having AI on backgas only, and using SPGs on stages etc, makes no sense. And what about sidemount? Perhaps two computers, one dedicated to each tank? ;-)

Shearwater offers unparalleled customer service and I expect that part of the reason for that is that have a comparatively small number of customers. (The other reason is that their gear seems to be pretty much bomb-proof... they probably just don't get that many calls!). Beyond that, my guess is the owners of SW are less motivated by profit than they are by building the "perfect" dive computer.

 

[stuartv]

This. Pretty much definition, tech diving involves multiple gasses and I don't see AI working in that scenario. Having AI on backgas only, and using SPGs on stages etc, makes no sense.

What would be wrong with having AI on just the back gas? Even though you'd only collect SAC data on your back gas consumption that is still more useful than no SAC data at all (meaning no more data than just start pressure, end pressure, time and average depth). I really like examining my consumption rate for the various parts of my dives.

 

[drrich2]

Beyond that, my guess is the owners of SW are less motivated by profit than they are by building the "perfect" dive computer.

That may well be, but I imagine they're also motivated by eating, paying the rent, etc... You don't have to be greedy to want to eat. My analogy is that money doesn't make the world go 'round, but you've gotta pay for the ride. Few capitalism-based businesses prefer a small customer base for long.

The Petrel is greatly praised on Scuba Board for its excellence. As we enter 2016. And the Perdix looks likely to have a similar reception. But if they're unchanged in 2020, that may be a problem. Other companies will innovate. Sooner or later, Petrel-like features will show up in competitor products (it was mentioned on one of these threads the Shearwater people are probably following the discussion. I imagine some of their competitors may be, too). May not be as good, but might be good enough (I'm an iOS guy, no naturally I'm itching to make Android comparisons, but then we'll be off on the iOS vs. Android tangent).

My point is, there's a lot of pressure on most companies to innovate, rather than declare their product perfect as-is and never change it. I wonder what advances are planned or desired for the Petrel/Perdix, from a tec. diving perspective? The moves from Predator to Petrel to Predix seemed evolutionary, not revolutionary. What's left to do?

If there's not a lot more to add/change/refine from a tec. diving perspective, the rec. market might offer opportunities, perhaps for a different model dive computer.

Is it possible for there to be a 'Recral' without undermining the Petrel/Perdix?

Richard.

P.S.: I get the concept of feature creep making a product bloated and more complex. I was happy with Microsoft Word as it was a few versions ago. Ribbon Interface? Bloatware that runs slower? Hey, I don't do online collaboration! And so on.

 

[SillyQuestions]

They can innovate with the Perdix EXT for 2020

Much more useful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk