• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

So, Will Shearwater offer Gas Integration

Discussion in 'Shearwater Research' started by guyharrisonphoto, Nov 14, 2014.

  1. victorzamora

    victorzamora Solo Diver

    3,015
    1,345
    113
    Neither of these statements are at all accurate. There is NO lack of relationship between deco algo and AI implementation as the same computer has to run both features simultaneously. Period. It's how these things work. A crash in the AI-side will cause a crash in the deco side. If you look through the Aeris A300CS failures and many of the Suunto failures, you'll see that a mid-dive lockout was often pre-empted by an AI-failure. Confirming that it was AI-caused, however, is impossible. What IS obvious, though, is that added complexities (like AI) add potential failure points and hangups in the computer. The more that there is to crash, the more likely that it will. Period. Hollis DG03s had this issue for a while, and a firmware update SUPPOSEDLY fixed it. Mine had it, so I can confirm.

    As for "All evidence pointing".....you provided no evidence at all. There's nothing pointing that they're separate. The fact that one processor is inputting all items to one screen means that they ARE connected. Period. The fact that one piece of firmware has to take inputs from an extra piece of hardware means that they do, in fact, interfere with eachother.
     
  2. Baron015

    Baron015 Divemaster Candidate

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: London
    8
    4
    3
    I've used AI computers Aladdin Air and Uwatek Smart Tec for decades and never any problem. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
     
  3. TTPaws

    TTPaws IDC Staff Instructor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Washington, D.C.
    241
    53
    28
    AJ, Did you just make a nerd joke? RISC

    The least of your worries would be the software. There are 'tools' that do line by line test and run through automated test cases by the thousands. Do you think a DC is more complicated then an airplane?

    I'm even willing to say that automobiles have significantly more lines of code and complexity then do most DCs, and what fails on them in just about every case is hardware. In the case of a failure, you simply code around it. For instance if the bluetooth fails then you flash a warning of the failure and move on.

    If they added AI, I would only use it if the transmitters were inexpensive enough to have multiples, partially for sidemount and at least one as a back up. Hardware fails. Of course I would also have 2 Petrels.

    As a side note I wouldn't mind knowing the OS and the langauge that is used.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2014
    Lorenzoid likes this.
  4. Seya

    Seya DIR Practitioner

    240
    80
    28
    Before people thought that computers where evil and you can't trust them. In a couple of years that changed. People are scared of change. You guys make it seem like nobody is smart enough to write software for AI it will happen and people will move on to the next change that scares them.

    Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
     
  5. eelnoraa

    eelnoraa DIR Practitioner

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: San Francisco Bay Area
    3,920
    892
    113
    Personally, I don't care if Shearwater put AI or compass or kitchen sink into their computer as long as I can disable things I don't use and it does NOT cost me more money. More importantly, say when AI is disabled, I want to be able to use the screen real estate for other more useful info. If this is the pre-condition, I don't mind it has AI feature.
     
    scubadada, kelemvor and TTPaws like this.
  6. Dr. Lecter

    Dr. Lecter Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: NYC/Honolulu
    4,139
    2,921
    113
    Whatever you say, champ. Thing is, while computers are great, you still can't trust them.
     
  7. kelemvor

    kelemvor Big Fleshy Monster ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: Largo, FL USA
    5,825
    3,024
    113
    What I've been planning is to dive on my petrels, and keep a galileo in my pocket for logging purposes since petrel can't do it. Post dive analysis will be much more interesting to me with gas consumption data.

    I'd been hemming and hawing about doing that until I finally found the config options to eliminate all beeps from Galileo due to signal loss. The only thing better would be if I could get all three set to the same algorithm.

    Hopefully someday, someone will make a dc that does everything I want. When that happens, I will buy two and be a happy camper.
     
    scubadada likes this.
  8. Seya

    Seya DIR Practitioner

    240
    80
    28
    Humans and computers when an error happens it's the humans fault the vast majority of the time

    Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
     
    TTPaws likes this.
  9. Dr. Lecter

    Dr. Lecter Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: NYC/Honolulu
    4,139
    2,921
    113
    True, but blindly trusting a computer is best left to recreational divers who can simply ascend anytime things go wrong. For other diving, multiple sources of information and the ability to verify that what they're telling you is at least in the ballpark of being correct is prudent. For example, as you point out human error is rampant - that includes human error in setting up the computer for the dive in the first place.

    Guess what happens when you simply trust what it's telling you when that happens? :D
     
  10. victorzamora

    victorzamora Solo Diver

    3,015
    1,345
    113
    No, but airplanes have multiple redundant processors and voting algorithms. They're also not running the same way as PDCs. They're also MUCH more powerful and much more thoroughly designed, tested, and optimized than PDCs. However, I can guarantee they don't add completely unnecessary features out of fear that the entire system will crash. I'm an Aerospace Engineer and can guarantee that.

    It's not that at all. I don't trust humans, and I REALLY don't trust computers. I'm not scared of change, I even spent my entire college career (and free time since) pushing boundaries and pushing the limits on what is known. I know for a fact that adding any unnecessary features is just the best way of crashing the system. I've written firmware a bunch, and the trick was to write it as little code as possible. Computers are made by man, and it's man's doing that will always cause computers to fail. The more you add as a potential failure point, the more failures you'll have. Period.

    It's ALWAYS the human's fault. The human that maintained them, the human that wrote the code, the human that forged the chip, etc.
     
    jboneng and Dhboner like this.

Share This Page