Which Algo is better : Uwatec ADT or Suunto RGBM?
- Thread starter crabball
- Start date
Please register or login
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
Anyone have any info on how the 2 abovementioned Dive Computer Algo compare? Which is better? What are the good n Bad points for both
MNScuba
Guest
In my opinion (Suunto owner), Uwatec is the leader. My next computer will be an Uwatec, I hope anyway. I can provide details if need be, but by far one of the most trusted names among very experienced divers that I personally know is Uwatec. For recreational diving, it probably doesn't make a huge difference, but I'll go with Uwatec next time around.
nickjb
Contributor
Yes it does.
I don't know much about the Uwatec algorythm but I am sure it very good. I have read a lot about the Suunto RGBM and it is a very good model. The adjustable conservatism gives you as much safety as you want too.
I don't know much about the Uwatec algorythm but I am sure it very good. I have read a lot about the Suunto RGBM and it is a very good model. The adjustable conservatism gives you as much safety as you want too.
RGBM is a model by Bruce Weinke (apologies if I've spelt the name wrong) and is widely published and used (Abyss, DDPlan(new version), Suunto) its well tried and tested and public domain
The UWatec version is proprietry and has lots of fudge factors for water temp etc (how does it know if I'm wearing a drysuit or a wetsuit?). its anyones guess what it does beneath the covers
Both try to model the normal compartment (haldeanean) stuff and also predict the free microbubble phase. Both will heavily penalise for rapid ascent, reverse profiles, bounce dives etc
Both produce similar profiles, though the Suunto tends to give deeper stops (neither are deep enough if you ask me)
You pays your money and you take your choice. I own Suunto (MDE, Vyper, Stinger) and Uwatec (Alladin Pro) models, all are fine. I prefer the Suunto display and Dive Software. I have however moved to the VR3 as my main machine, the others are backups
The UWatec version is proprietry and has lots of fudge factors for water temp etc (how does it know if I'm wearing a drysuit or a wetsuit?). its anyones guess what it does beneath the covers
Both try to model the normal compartment (haldeanean) stuff and also predict the free microbubble phase. Both will heavily penalise for rapid ascent, reverse profiles, bounce dives etc
Both produce similar profiles, though the Suunto tends to give deeper stops (neither are deep enough if you ask me)
You pays your money and you take your choice. I own Suunto (MDE, Vyper, Stinger) and Uwatec (Alladin Pro) models, all are fine. I prefer the Suunto display and Dive Software. I have however moved to the VR3 as my main machine, the others are backups
Skylark_86
Registered
From what I know (correct me if I'm wrong), Uwatec computers function on an "adaptive" algorithm, whereas, Suunto computers work on a more or less fixed algorithm. The significance of this is that Uwatec computers are able to closely monitor your diving conditions e.g water temperature, and make adjustments accordingly to its dive computations.
For example, if you are diving in colder waters, the computer automatically takes into consideration that you will be absorbing more nitrogen into your body, and may thus recommend you to do additional safety stops. For units with air integration, the computer even measures your normal rate of breathing. Since any increase in breathing rate would normally mean the diver is exerting himself, and ingassing additional nitrogen, the computer takes note of this, and will modify its computations to compensate for this.
In this area, the Uwatec algorithm is superior to its Suunto counterpart's.
For example, if you are diving in colder waters, the computer automatically takes into consideration that you will be absorbing more nitrogen into your body, and may thus recommend you to do additional safety stops. For units with air integration, the computer even measures your normal rate of breathing. Since any increase in breathing rate would normally mean the diver is exerting himself, and ingassing additional nitrogen, the computer takes note of this, and will modify its computations to compensate for this.
In this area, the Uwatec algorithm is superior to its Suunto counterpart's.
SCUBAMedic
Guest
I dive a Suunto Cobra and use a vyper as a back up. From what I have read the UWatec blows Suunto out of the water in adaptive features in its modeling. But as we have seen with both brands is the same trend that PC software has had for some time, is that they are now getting bugs in the dive computers. For Sunnto it was with their Vytec in planning mode (Not a bad bug - but a bug anyway) and in the UWatec a total product recall and several postes in this forum of the computer failing at depth.
Now if youor computer crashes then you reboot, if your dive computer crashes then you could be in some serious poo if you haven tabled the dive or use a back up computer. With the price that the top-of-the-line dive computers are some people many not be able to afford a second computer.
I believe that this bug trend will only get worse as new and more complicated dive computers are brought to the market.
Some times it pays to use a less adaptive and an establised computer model as the tecnology is more mature and the issues have been worked out in the real world and not in the lab.
I would be interested in others view of this subject
Now if youor computer crashes then you reboot, if your dive computer crashes then you could be in some serious poo if you haven tabled the dive or use a back up computer. With the price that the top-of-the-line dive computers are some people many not be able to afford a second computer.
I believe that this bug trend will only get worse as new and more complicated dive computers are brought to the market.
Some times it pays to use a less adaptive and an establised computer model as the tecnology is more mature and the issues have been worked out in the real world and not in the lab.
I would be interested in others view of this subject
Personally I think that I would avoid any computer that penalised me if it went into cold water. I wear a dry suit and dive a rebreather so I an not in anyway affected by that factor, but I'm gonna get hammered for it.
The Suunto does adapt for ascent rate violations and all the elements that are important. If you ask me the other things that the Uwatec compensate for are more marketing than need
The RGBM part of the Suunto alroythm is published, but until both manufactures publish their actual algorythms (not likely) its all conjecture
The Suunto does adapt for ascent rate violations and all the elements that are important. If you ask me the other things that the Uwatec compensate for are more marketing than need
The RGBM part of the Suunto alroythm is published, but until both manufactures publish their actual algorythms (not likely) its all conjecture
Mouth Breather old
Contributor
I too have been frustrated by the comparisons of the Uwatec vs Suunto models. So yesterday I finally bought a new Vytec w/transmitter to compare on three days worth of diving on a liveaboard at the Channel Islands. I plan to dive the Vytec and Uwatec Smartcom and Uwatec Air Z Nitrox at the same time. Want to figure out which is most conservative for my usual dive style. Which is most annoying, easier to read, etc. etc.
My ultimate goal is to settle on one manufacturer. And have a wrist mounted AI computer with some other backup computer. Vytec AI with a Stinger/or Cobra. OR Uwatec Air Z Nitrox AI with a Smartcom.
I guess I don't totally trust a single electronic SPG and want some redundancy, could be analog OR electronic back-up.
My ultimate goal is to settle on one manufacturer. And have a wrist mounted AI computer with some other backup computer. Vytec AI with a Stinger/or Cobra. OR Uwatec Air Z Nitrox AI with a Smartcom.
I guess I don't totally trust a single electronic SPG and want some redundancy, could be analog OR electronic back-up.
jeffsterinsf
Contributor
A wonder philosophical discussion appears above, but I am a bit concerned on how one defines "better." I'm not a MD or microbiologist, but my understanding is that all of these wonderful "tissue loading" models have not been proven to represent much of anything that is happening at the tissue level.
There is a lot of emperical and experimental evidence out there about what types of dive profiles make some/most people DCI symptomatic, or even sub-symptomatic (e.g., "microbubbles"). There is also a lot that says that everyone's body is different, and even different from day to day. So, at best, there are some tables that show a point where there is a "sufficiently low" likelihood of DCI onset.
The DIR divers and thier philosophically-aligned counterparts dive strict profiles based on tables. There is a lot to be said for this, especially as their environment (either overhead, deco-required, or both) adds significant risk when compared to "open-water, recreational divers." They manage risk effectively using their systems.
For me, I understand the tables. Perhaps too well. Not just how to use them, but that they are only a guideline, a suggestion of when the risk reaches an acceptably low level for some class of divers. But I dive with a computer after checking the tables.
What made its tissue model "best" for me? It was more conservative than the tables. I don't need that extra 3 minutes for the diving I do to achieve my personal goals.
One of the reasons I chose the manufacturer I did is that their software could be freely downloaded and placed into "simulation" mode so that I could see how the instrument would compare to the tables for repetative diving of varied profiles.
Would I dive a computer if I were doing more advanced diving? Hmmmm.... I'd have to say I'd side with the DIR-style divers and not believe that just because it is digital, is it right. At their level of risk, I want to manage it myself, where I make the decisions.
There is a lot of emperical and experimental evidence out there about what types of dive profiles make some/most people DCI symptomatic, or even sub-symptomatic (e.g., "microbubbles"). There is also a lot that says that everyone's body is different, and even different from day to day. So, at best, there are some tables that show a point where there is a "sufficiently low" likelihood of DCI onset.
The DIR divers and thier philosophically-aligned counterparts dive strict profiles based on tables. There is a lot to be said for this, especially as their environment (either overhead, deco-required, or both) adds significant risk when compared to "open-water, recreational divers." They manage risk effectively using their systems.
For me, I understand the tables. Perhaps too well. Not just how to use them, but that they are only a guideline, a suggestion of when the risk reaches an acceptably low level for some class of divers. But I dive with a computer after checking the tables.
What made its tissue model "best" for me? It was more conservative than the tables. I don't need that extra 3 minutes for the diving I do to achieve my personal goals.
One of the reasons I chose the manufacturer I did is that their software could be freely downloaded and placed into "simulation" mode so that I could see how the instrument would compare to the tables for repetative diving of varied profiles.
Would I dive a computer if I were doing more advanced diving? Hmmmm.... I'd have to say I'd side with the DIR-style divers and not believe that just because it is digital, is it right. At their level of risk, I want to manage it myself, where I make the decisions.
Similar threads
